Hurst & Ors v Hone & Ors

Hurst & Ors v Hone & Ors

Cordner made a series of false representations to claimants about the Aloha Royal development, including his own role, the ownership and security of the development, and the protection of purchasers' funds, some of which he knew to be false and made with intent to induce claimants to invest. These representations contributed substantially to the claimants' decisions to invest and caused them loss. Cordner is liable in deceit to claimants (except Innocent) for their investments in Aloha Royal, and Kenyon's tracing claim succeeds. Claims in deceit relating to Sir Geoff's promotional agreement and loan, and claims by Innocent, fail. No partnership or actionable conspiracy was found....

Parties
Claimant: Sir Geoffrey Hurst; Claimant: David Barkley; Claimant: Darren Innocent; Claimant: Terence Hopley; Claimant: Paul Kenyon; Claimant: Martin Roberts; Claimant: Verna Roberts; Defendant: Michael Hone; Defendant: Mark Cordner; Defendant: Royal Marbella Group of Companies SL; Defendant: Wilchester Holdings Inc; Defendant: Grosvenor Square Investments Inc; Defendant: Azul Properties SL; Defendant: Sandra Cordner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial on Liability (with Limited Quantum Issues)
Outcome
Judgment for claimants (except Innocent) on liability for deceit and tracing; other claims dismissed; quantum to be assessed at further hearing; freezing order to remain.
Legal Topics
Deceit, Negligent Misstatement, Breach of Trust, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy, Partnership, Tracing, Misrepresentation, Off Plan Property Investment, Spanish Law (law 57 of 1968)

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir Geoffrey Hurst

Claimant

David Barkley

Claimant

Darren Innocent

Claimant

Terence Hopley

Claimant

Paul Kenyon

Claimant

Martin Roberts

Claimant

Verna Roberts

Claimant

Michael Hone

Defendant

Mark Cordner

Defendant

Royal Marbella Group of Companies SL

Defendant

Wilchester Holdings Inc

Defendant

Grosvenor Square Investments Inc

Defendant

Azul Properties SL

Defendant

Sandra Cordner

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial on Liability (with Limited Quantum Issues)

  1. 1 Whether the defendant (Mark Cordner) made false representations to claimants inducing them to invest in off-plan Spanish property and/or to lend money, and whether such representations were made fraudulently (deceit), negligently (negligent misstatement), or in breach of trust/fiduciary duty; whether claimants are entitled to damages and/or tracing remedies; whether there was a partnership or conspiracy between Cordner and Hone; whether claimants must give credit for any residual value in the investments.

Ratio Decidendi

Cordner made a series of false representations to claimants about the Aloha Royal development, including his own role, the ownership and security of the development, and the protection of purchasers' funds, some of which he knew to be false and made with intent to induce claimants to invest. These representations contributed substantially to the claimants' decisions to invest and caused them loss. Cordner is liable in deceit to claimants (except Innocent) for their investments in Aloha Royal, and Kenyon's tracing claim succeeds. Claims in deceit relating to Sir Geoff's promotional agreement and loan, and claims by Innocent, fail. No partnership or actionable conspiracy was found....

Court Disposition

Judgment for claimants (except Innocent) on liability for deceit and tracing; other claims dismissed; quantum to be assessed at further hearing; freezing order to remain.

Orders

  • Damages to be assessed for Sir Geoff, Mr Hopley, Mr and Mrs Roberts, Mr Barkley, and Mr Kenyon for deceit in connection with Aloha Royal investments.
  • Kenyon's tracing claim against Mr and Mrs Cordner succeeds; further issues on tracing to be determined.