Lloyd v Kruger [2018] EWHC 2011 (Comm) (27 July 2018)

Lloyd v Kruger [2018] EWHC 2011 (Comm) (27 July 2018)

The claim in deceit fails because the claimant did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant made knowingly false or reckless representations as alleged. The evidence showed that the claimant was aware, or ought to have been aware, of the assets included in the transaction at the relevant time, and there was no contemporaneous complaint or evidence of reliance. Furthermore, the claim is time-barred as the claimant could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud well before the limitation period expired.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2011 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Dennis Lloyd; Defendant: Howard Kruger
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (deceit/fraud) / High Court Trial, Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Deceit, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Company Acquisition, Directors' Duties, Limitation Periods
Commercial Law Tort Law Company Law Deceit Fraudulent Misrepresentation Company Acquisition Directors' Duties Limitation Periods

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennis Lloyd

Claimant

Howard Kruger

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (deceit/fraud) / High Court Trial, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the claimant to invest and work in PEHL/ESMG
  2. 2 Whether the representations were false and made dishonestly or recklessly
  3. 3 Whether the claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The claim in deceit fails because the claimant did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant made knowingly false or reckless representations as alleged. The evidence showed that the claimant was aware, or ought to have been aware, of the assets included in the transaction at the relevant time, and there was no contemporaneous complaint or evidence of reliance. Furthermore, the claim is time-barred as the claimant could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud well before the limitation period expired.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim in deceit dismissed
  • No order for damages or further relief