Lowry Trading Ltd v Musicalize Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 142 (Comm) (29 January 2024)

Lowry Trading Ltd v Musicalize Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 142 (Comm) (29 January 2024)

The court held that the defendants did not have a real prospect of successfully defending the claims in deceit in respect of the sums advanced after the fraudulent representations, as the evidence of falsity was overwhelming and largely unchallenged. The court further held that repayment of the advanced sums did not extinguish the claimants' cause of action in deceit, as the tort was complete upon reliance and loss, and the repayment was not voluntary but compelled by court order.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 142 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Lowry Trading Limited; Claimant: SAS Financing Limited; Defendant: Musicalize Ltd; Defendant: Benjamin Delano Anderson; Defendant: Sophie Kate Anderson; Defendant: Musicalize Touring Limited; Defendant: Musicalize Touring Events Limited (in administration)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part for the claimants
Legal Topics
Deceit, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Summary Judgment, Appropriation of Payments, Reliance and Causation, Dishonesty, Repayment and Loss
Commercial Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Deceit Fraudulent Misrepresentation Summary Judgment Appropriation of Payments Reliance and Causation +2 more

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lowry Trading Limited

Claimant

SAS Financing Limited

Claimant

Musicalize Ltd

Defendant

Benjamin Delano Anderson

Defendant

Sophie Kate Anderson

Defendant

Musicalize Touring Limited

Defendant

Musicalize Touring Events Limited (in administration)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the claimants to advance funds
  2. 2 Whether the claimants relied on those misrepresentations
  3. 3 Whether the defendants had any real prospect of defending the claims in deceit

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants did not have a real prospect of successfully defending the claims in deceit in respect of the sums advanced after the fraudulent representations, as the evidence of falsity was overwhelming and largely unchallenged. The court further held that repayment of the advanced sums did not extinguish the claimants' cause of action in deceit, as the tort was complete upon reliance and loss, and the repayment was not voluntary but compelled by court order.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part for the claimants

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the first claimant for £500,000 plus interest against the first to third and fifth defendants in deceit, subject to credit for the sum repaid
  • Summary judgment for the second claimant for £5,151,259 (alternatively £2,864,064) against the second to fifth defendants in deceit, subject to further directions