First Tower Trustees Ltd & Anor v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd [2017] EWHC 891 (Ch) (20 February 2017)

First Tower Trustees Ltd & Anor v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd [2017] EWHC 891 (Ch) (20 February 2017)

The Claimants made a material misrepresentation in their Replies to Enquiries (answer 15.7) by failing to disclose known asbestos issues, inducing the Defendant to enter the Lease and Agreement for a Lease. The contractual non-reliance clause in the Lease failed the reasonableness test under UCTA 1977, and the clause in the Agreement for a Lease did not exclude liability for misrepresentations in Replies to Enquiries. Trustee limitation clauses did not extend to pre-contractual misrepresentation. The Defendant is entitled to damages for asbestos-related losses, subject to calculation adjustments.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 891 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Claimants (Landlords, Trustees of the Barnsley Unit Trust); Defendant: Defendant (Tenant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendant on the counterclaim for misrepresentation; damages awarded subject to calculation.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Leasehold, Trustee Liability, Damages, Exclusion Clauses, Quiet Enjoyment, Non Derogation From Grant
Property Law Contract Law Trust Law Misrepresentation Leasehold Trustee Liability Damages Exclusion Clauses +2 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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimants (Landlords, Trustees of the Barnsley Unit Trust)

Claimant

Defendant (Tenant)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants made actionable misrepresentations inducing the Lease and Agreement for a Lease
  2. 2 Whether contractual exclusion/non-reliance clauses bar the Defendant's misrepresentation claim
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant is entitled to damages for asbestos-related losses

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants made a material misrepresentation in their Replies to Enquiries (answer 15.7) by failing to disclose known asbestos issues, inducing the Defendant to enter the Lease and Agreement for a Lease. The contractual non-reliance clause in the Lease failed the reasonableness test under UCTA 1977, and the clause in the Agreement for a Lease did not exclude liability for misrepresentations in Replies to Enquiries. Trustee limitation clauses did not extend to pre-contractual misrepresentation. The Defendant is entitled to damages for asbestos-related losses, subject to calculation adjustments.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendant on the counterclaim for misrepresentation; damages awarded subject to calculation.

Orders

  • Claimants' claims for specific performance and unpaid rent dismissed as not pursued.
  • Defendant's counterclaim for damages for misrepresentation allowed, quantum to be finalised after further calculation.