Mortgage Agency Services Number One Ltd (t/a Britannia Commercial Lending) v Cripps Harries LLP [2016] EWHC 2483 (Ch) (12 October 2016)

Mortgage Agency Services Number One Ltd (t/a Britannia Commercial Lending) v Cripps Harries LLP [2016] EWHC 2483 (Ch) (12 October 2016)

The court found that the alleged misrepresentations by Miss Francis and Mrs Glavin were not made fraudulently. The evidence did not support knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. The claim for conspiracy failed as there was no agreement to conceal material facts. The breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust claims were not established. Masnol's reliance and causation arguments were critically examined and rejected. Damages were agreed but not awarded due to lack of liability.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2483 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mortgage Agency Services Number One Limited (trading as Britannia Commercial Lending); Defendant: Cripps Harries LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2016
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Conspiracy, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Trust, Solicitor Liability, Damages
Civil Litigation Professional Negligence Fraud Fraudulent Misrepresentation Conspiracy Breach of Fiduciary Duty Breach of Trust Solicitor Liability +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mortgage Agency Services Number One Limited (trading as Britannia Commercial Lending)

Claimant

Cripps Harries LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CHH, through its employees, made fraudulent misrepresentations to Masnol
  2. 2 Whether CHH conspired with Mr McGuinness to conceal material facts
  3. 3 Whether CHH breached fiduciary duties and undertakings

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the alleged misrepresentations by Miss Francis and Mrs Glavin were not made fraudulently. The evidence did not support knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. The claim for conspiracy failed as there was no agreement to conceal material facts. The breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust claims were not established. Masnol's reliance and causation arguments were critically examined and rejected. Damages were agreed but not awarded due to lack of liability.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded
  • No relief granted against CHH