Ratiu & Ors v Conway [2005] EWCA Civ 1302 (08 November 2005)

Ratiu & Ors v Conway [2005] EWCA Civ 1302 (08 November 2005)

The Court held that the judge erred in directing the jury that Mr Conway owed no fiduciary duty to Regent, as the existence and scope of such a duty was a fact-sensitive issue for the jury. The judge's misdirection was a substantial wrong, rendering the jury's verdict unsafe. The appeal was allowed and a retrial ordered.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1302
Parties
Appellant: NICOLAE CHRISTOPHER RATIU; Appellant: SIMON HARRY KARMEL; Appellant: REGENT HOUSE PROPERTIES LTD; Respondent: DAVID PETER CONWAY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment After Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Fiduciary Duty, Duty of Confidence, Qualified Privilege, Conflict of Interest, Damages
Defamation Professional Negligence Equity and Trusts Libel Malicious Falsehood Fiduciary Duty Duty of Confidence Qualified Privilege +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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NICOLAE CHRISTOPHER RATIU

Appellant

SIMON HARRY KARMEL

Appellant

REGENT HOUSE PROPERTIES LTD

Appellant

DAVID PETER CONWAY

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Conway owed a fiduciary duty to Regent or only to Pristbrook
  2. 2 Whether Mr Conway breached a duty of confidence to Regent
  3. 3 Whether the defamatory letter was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the judge erred in directing the jury that Mr Conway owed no fiduciary duty to Regent, as the existence and scope of such a duty was a fact-sensitive issue for the jury. The judge's misdirection was a substantial wrong, rendering the jury's verdict unsafe. The appeal was allowed and a retrial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Jury verdict set aside
  • Case remitted for retrial