Lowry Trading Limited & Anor v Musicalize Ltd & Ors

Lowry Trading Limited & Anor v Musicalize Ltd & Ors

The Defendants made false representations, including forged documents and misstatements about ticket sales and profit projections, which were intended to and did induce the Claimants to advance funds. The Defendants acted dishonestly or recklessly as to the truth of the representations. The Claimants relied on these representations and suffered loss. Repayment of £500,000 to the First Claimant does not extinguish the tort claim, as interest remains outstanding and no valid appropriation was made. The Defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claims in deceit.

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
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the Claimants
Legal Topics
Deceit, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Summary Judgment, Inducement, Appropriation of Payments
Tort Contract Civil Procedure Deceit Fraudulent Misrepresentation Summary Judgment Inducement Appropriation of Payments

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants made false representations to induce the Claimants to advance funds
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants acted dishonestly or recklessly in making such representations
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants relied on the representations and suffered loss

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants made false representations, including forged documents and misstatements about ticket sales and profit projections, which were intended to and did induce the Claimants to advance funds. The Defendants acted dishonestly or recklessly as to the truth of the representations. The Claimants relied on these representations and suffered loss. Repayment of £500,000 to the First Claimant does not extinguish the tort claim, as interest remains outstanding and no valid appropriation was made. The Defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claims in deceit.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the Claimants

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the First Claimant against the First to Third and Fifth Defendants for deceit in respect of the Third Lowry Payment, subject to credit for £500,000 repaid and interest to be determined
  • Summary judgment for the Second Claimant against the Second to Fifth Defendants for deceit in the sum of £5,151,259, with interest to be determined