Al-Nesnas v Al-Najar & Ors

Al-Nesnas v Al-Najar & Ors

The material before the judge did not justify summary judgment on the misrepresentation claims, as there remained real prospects of defending those claims and the Defence, though thin, raised triable issues. However, the evidence of misappropriation of funds was uncontradicted and unexplained, justifying summary...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Imad Al-Nesnas; Appellant: Mahmood Al-Najar; Appellant: Faphdev Limited (Formerly Prestige Homes (Developments) Limited); Appellant: Prestige Homes Improvements Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; summary judgment for misrepresentation set aside; summary judgment for breach of contract substituted; damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Repudiatory Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Tracing, Freezing Orders
Contract Law Equity Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Repudiatory Breach of Contract Unjust Enrichment +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imad Al-Nesnas

Respondent

Mahmood Al-Najar

Appellant

Faphdev Limited (Formerly Prestige Homes (Developments) Limited)

Appellant

Prestige Homes Improvements Limited

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was properly granted on claims of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the judge made sufficient findings of fact to justify summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether the claims for repudiatory breach of contract and unjust enrichment could be determined summarily

Ratio Decidendi

The material before the judge did not justify summary judgment on the misrepresentation claims, as there remained real prospects of defending those claims and the Defence, though thin, raised triable issues. However, the evidence of misappropriation of funds was uncontradicted and unexplained, justifying summary judgment for repudiatory breach of contract, with damages to be assessed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; summary judgment for misrepresentation set aside; summary judgment for breach of contract substituted; damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for misrepresentation set aside
  • Summary judgment for breach of contract entered