Nuttal & Anor v Kerr & Anor [2019] EWHC 1977 (QB) (25 July 2019)

Nuttal & Anor v Kerr & Anor [2019] EWHC 1977 (QB) (25 July 2019)

Despite the serious delay, the trial judge's findings were supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence and correct application of legal principles. The characterisation of Ms Kerr's evidence as exaggeration rather than dishonesty was open to the judge and did not materially affect the outcome. No material error in fact-finding or law was identified that would justify a retrial.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1977
Parties
Applicant: Mr Matthew Nuttal; Applicant: Mr Wayne Lochner; Claimant: Ms Lorraine Kerr; Claimant: Mr Bruce Sinclair
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against First Instance Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Delay in Judgment, Rescission of Contract, Inducement, Appellate Review of Fact Finding
Civil Law Contract Law Fraud Fraudulent Misrepresentation Delay in Judgment Rescission of Contract Inducement Appellate Review of Fact Finding

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Matthew Nuttal

Applicant

Mr Wayne Lochner

Applicant

Ms Lorraine Kerr

Claimant

Mr Bruce Sinclair

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against First Instance Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether serious judicial delay undermined the trial judgment's findings of fact
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in characterising a witness's evidence as exaggeration rather than dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether the findings of fraudulent misrepresentation and inducement were justified

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the serious delay, the trial judge's findings were supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence and correct application of legal principles. The characterisation of Ms Kerr's evidence as exaggeration rather than dishonesty was open to the judge and did not materially affect the outcome. No material error in fact-finding or law was identified that would justify a retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted due to serious delay
  • Appeal dismissed; no retrial ordered