Lloyd v Kruger

Lloyd v Kruger

The claim in deceit fails because the claimant did not prove that the defendant made fraudulent representations; the representations were honestly made at the time, and subsequent changes to the deal were not concealed with intent to defraud. The claim is also time-barred, as the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the facts more than six years before issuing the claim.

Parties
Claimant: Dennis Lloyd; Defendant: Howard Kruger
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Limitation, Loss Calculation
Tort Contract Fraudulent Misrepresentation Deceit Limitation Loss Calculation

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennis Lloyd

Claimant

Howard Kruger

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the claimant to invest and work for PEHL
  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 that the defendant made fraudulent representations; the representations were honestly made at the time, and subsequent changes to the deal were not concealed with intent to defraud. The claim is also time-barred, as the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the facts more than six years before issuing the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed