Murad & Anor v Al-Saraj & Anor [2004] EWHC 1235 (Ch) (28 May 2004)

Murad & Anor v Al-Saraj & Anor [2004] EWHC 1235 (Ch) (28 May 2004)

The court found that Mr Al-Saraj fraudulently misrepresented the purchase price of the Hotel to the Claimants, who were unaware that only £3.6m was paid to the vendor and that the alleged £500,000 contribution was not made in cash but by a purported set-off. The misrepresentation was material and induced the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1235 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Aysha Mohammed Murad; Claimant: Layla Mohammed Murad; Defendant: Hashim Ibrahim Khalil Al-Saraj; Defendant: Westwood Business Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimants
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Rescission, Account of Profits, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Waiver of Tort, Damages, Company Law
Equity Contract Law Fraud Fraudulent Misrepresentation Rescission Account of Profits Breach of Fiduciary Duty Waiver of Tort +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aysha Mohammed Murad

Claimant

Layla Mohammed Murad

Claimant

Hashim Ibrahim Khalil Al-Saraj

Defendant

Westwood Business Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Al-Saraj fraudulently misrepresented the purchase price of the Hotel to the Claimants
  2. 2 Whether Mr Al-Saraj made a genuine contribution of £500,000 to the purchase price
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants are entitled to rescission, damages, or account of profits

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Al-Saraj fraudulently misrepresented the purchase price of the Hotel to the Claimants, who were unaware that only £3.6m was paid to the vendor and that the alleged £500,000 contribution was not made in cash but by a purported set-off. The misrepresentation was material and induced the Claimants to enter into the agreements. The court held that the Claimants were entitled to relief, including rescission and an account of profits, as the Defendants' entitlement to profit and shares was procured by fraud.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimants

Orders

  • Rescission of agreements entitling Defendants to profit or shares in Danescroft
  • Account of profits made by Defendants from the sale of the Hotel