Hussain v Mukhtar

Hussain v Mukhtar

The Defendant did not make the alleged representations; even if he had, they were not fraudulent representations of fact; and the claim is time barred as the Claimant discovered or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud more than six years before the claim was issued.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Rizwan Hussain; Defendant: Saleem Mukhtar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Limitation Period, Deceit, Misrepresentation Act 1967, Companies Act 2006
Tort Contract Company Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Limitation Period Deceit Misrepresentation Act 1967 Companies Act 2006

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rizwan Hussain

Claimant

Saleem Mukhtar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the Claimant's investment
  2. 2 Whether the claim is time barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant suffered recoverable loss from alleged misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant did not make the alleged representations; even if he had, they were not fraudulent representations of fact; and the claim is time barred as the Claimant discovered or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud more than six years before the claim was issued.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed