Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson & Anor [1991] EWCA Civ 12 (21 March 1991)

Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson & Anor [1991] EWCA Civ 12 (21 March 1991)

The correct measure of damages for innocent misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 is the same as for fraudulent misrepresentation, allowing recovery of all losses directly flowing from the misrepresentation, even if unforeseeable, provided they are not too remote. The wrongful sale of the car by the customer was reasonably foreseeable and did not break the chain of causation. The finance company is entitled to recover the difference between the amount paid to the dealer and the amount received from the customer.

Citation
[1991] EWCA Civ 12
Parties
Plaintiff: Royscot Trust Ltd; First Defendant: Andrew Jeffrey Rogerson; Second Defendant/appellant: Maidenhead Honda Centre Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment on Assessment of Damages
Outcome
appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Innocent Misrepresentation, Measure of Damages, Misrepresentation Act 1967, Causation, Remoteness of Damage
Contract Law Tort Law Innocent Misrepresentation Measure of Damages Misrepresentation Act 1967 Causation Remoteness of Damage

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royscot Trust Ltd

Plaintiff

Andrew Jeffrey Rogerson

First Defendant

Maidenhead Honda Centre Ltd

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment on Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct measure of damages for innocent misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967?
  2. 2 Is the measure of damages the same as for fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit)?
  3. 3 Was the wrongful sale of the car by the customer a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation?

Ratio Decidendi

The correct measure of damages for innocent misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 is the same as for fraudulent misrepresentation, allowing recovery of all losses directly flowing from the misrepresentation, even if unforeseeable, provided they are not too remote. The wrongful sale of the car by the customer was reasonably foreseeable and did not break the chain of causation. The finance company is entitled to recover the difference between the amount paid to the dealer and the amount received from the customer.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • judgment below set aside
  • judgment entered for the finance company against the dealer for £3,625.24 with interest of £1,140.59