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 Palace for family reasons to move to the North, but the Club failed to prove that Mr Dowie made the further alleged representations regarding no contact or intention to join Charlton prior to the Compromise Agreement. The evidence did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1392 (QB)
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
Claim for rescission of the Compromise Agreement dismissed.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Rescission of Contract, Employment Termination, Compromise Agreement, Manager Compensation Clause
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 10
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 dated 22 May 2006 was entered into on the basis of fraudulent representations by Mr Dowie as alleged by the Club
  2. 2 If so, whether the Compromise Agreement should be rescinded

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that Mr Dowie did represent to Mr Jordan that he intended to leave Palace for family reasons to move to the North, but the Club failed to prove that Mr Dowie made the further alleged representations regarding no contact or intention to join Charlton prior to the Compromise Agreement. The evidence did not establish that the Compromise Agreement was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation as alleged. Therefore, the Club is not entitled to rescission of the Compromise Agreement.

Court Disposition

Claim for rescission of the Compromise Agreement dismissed.

Orders

  • The preliminary issues are determined in favour of the Defendant; the Compromise Agreement is not rescinded.