Crystal Palace FC (2000) Ltd v Dowie [2007] EWHC 1392 (QB) (14 June 2007)

Crystal Palace FC (2000) Ltd v Dowie [2007] EWHC 1392 (QB) (14 June 2007)

The court found that Mr Dowie did represent to Mr Jordan that he intended to leave Crystal Palace for family reasons to move to the North of England, but did not find that this was the sole reason or that all alleged representations were made. The court found that the club proved the first misrepresentation but not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1392
Parties
Claimant: Crystal Palace FC (2000) Limited; Defendant: Iain Dowie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort/contract) / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Partial finding for the claimant on the first misrepresentation; other alleged misrepresentations not proved; no final order for rescission at this stage as only preliminary issues were tried.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Rescission of Contract, Employment Termination, Compromise Agreement, Managerial Compensation Clauses
Contract Law Tort Law Employment Law Sports Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Deceit Rescission of Contract Employment Termination +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crystal Palace FC (2000) Limited

Claimant

Iain Dowie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort/contract) / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Compromise Agreement was entered into on the basis of fraudulent representations by Mr Dowie
  2. 2 Whether, if so, the Compromise Agreement should be rescinded

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Dowie did represent to Mr Jordan that he intended to leave Crystal Palace for family reasons to move to the North of England, but did not find that this was the sole reason or that all alleged representations were made. The court found that the club proved the first misrepresentation but not the others. The findings on whether the Compromise Agreement should be rescinded were limited to these preliminary issues.

Court Disposition

Partial finding for the claimant on the first misrepresentation; other alleged misrepresentations not proved; no final order for rescission at this stage as only preliminary issues were tried.