Lowry Trading Ltd & Anor v Haycox [2025] EWHC 2754 (Comm) (09 October 2025)

Lowry Trading Ltd & Anor v Haycox [2025] EWHC 2754 (Comm) (09 October 2025)

The defendant made knowingly false representations to the claimants regarding the existence and execution of the SPV 20 loan, intending to induce investment. The claimants relied on these representations and suffered loss. The defendant failed to provide any plausible explanation or evidence to rebut the presumption of inducement or to show a real prospect of defending the claim. No arguable defence of waiver or promissory estoppel arises. Summary judgment is therefore appropriate.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2754 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Lowry Trading Limited; Claimant: Scott Fletcher; Defendant: Matthew Haycox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (deceit) / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimants on the SPV 20 deceit claim.
Legal Topics
Deceit, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Summary Judgment, Inducement, Waiver, Promissory Estoppel
Commercial Law Tort Law Deceit Fraudulent Misrepresentation Summary Judgment Inducement Waiver Promissory Estoppel

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lowry Trading Limited

Claimant

Scott Fletcher

Claimant

Matthew Haycox

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (deceit) / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made false representations knowingly or recklessly to induce investment (deceit)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants relied on those representations and suffered loss
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment is appropriate in a deceit claim where dishonesty is in issue

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant made knowingly false representations to the claimants regarding the existence and execution of the SPV 20 loan, intending to induce investment. The claimants relied on these representations and suffered loss. The defendant failed to provide any plausible explanation or evidence to rebut the presumption of inducement or to show a real prospect of defending the claim. No arguable defence of waiver or promissory estoppel arises. Summary judgment is therefore appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimants on the SPV 20 deceit claim.

Orders

  • Defendant is liable to the claimants in deceit in respect of the SPV 20 investment.
  • Quantum of damages to be determined at a later stage if not agreed.