Conlon & Anor v Simms

Conlon & Anor v Simms

Mr Simms fraudulently failed to disclose his dishonesty and involvement in fraudulent transactions to Mr Conlon and Mr Harris, and made false assurances as to his honesty and the substance of clients. This non-disclosure and misrepresentation induced the claimants to enter into the partnership agreements. The findings of the SDT and Divisional Court are admissible as evidence of dishonesty in these circumstances. The claimants are entitled to damages to be assessed for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Ambrose Conlon; Claimant: Roger Harris; Defendant: Paul Francis Simms
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Partnership Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants on liability for fraudulent non-disclosure and misrepresentation; damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Damages, Admissibility of Disciplinary Findings
Partnership Law Professional Negligence Misrepresentation Fiduciary Duties Non Disclosure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Fiduciary Duty Damages +1 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ambrose Conlon

Claimant

Roger Harris

Claimant

Paul Francis Simms

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Partnership Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Simms fraudulently failed to disclose material facts to his partners prior to and during the partnership agreements
  2. 2 Whether Mr Simms made fraudulent misrepresentations regarding his honesty and the substance of clients (Elite and Charlton)
  3. 3 Whether the findings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and Divisional Court are admissible and binding in these proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Simms fraudulently failed to disclose his dishonesty and involvement in fraudulent transactions to Mr Conlon and Mr Harris, and made false assurances as to his honesty and the substance of clients. This non-disclosure and misrepresentation induced the claimants to enter into the partnership agreements. The findings of the SDT and Divisional Court are admissible as evidence of dishonesty in these circumstances. The claimants are entitled to damages to be assessed for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants on liability for fraudulent non-disclosure and misrepresentation; damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Declaration that Mr Simms fraudulently failed to disclose material facts and made fraudulent misrepresentations to Mr Conlon and Mr Harris
  • Mr Simms is liable to Mr Conlon and Mr Harris for damages to be assessed for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty