28 May 2021
Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because the evidence admitted an alternative, non‑deceptive explanation (that Lide bought at a legitimately lower cost or other lawful margin) meaning the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the representations were false as charged and that the conviction was therefore unsafe; sentencing review unnecessary once conviction set aside.
13 Jul 2007
The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the defendant's managing director made factual assurances that the premises were fit for a restaurant and that a licence could be obtained; those assurances were intended to induce the plaintiff to sign the provisional tenancy and amounted to a warranty. A qualified surveyor's report showing structural non‑compliance with the Building (Construction) Regulations rendered the representations false, entitling the plaintiff to recover the deposit and requiring dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.
18 May 1990
The agent supplied the sketch stating 950 sq.ft., but on the facts the agent acted for the purchaser in providing the agent's own records and not on the vendors' authority; therefore the vendors were not responsible for the misrepresentation. Alternatively, even if the misrepresentation were attributed to the vendors, Clause 20 excluding reliance on pre-contractual representations is fair and reasonable under s.4 Misrepresentation Ordinance and bars the purchaser's claim. Accordingly the purchaser's action is dismissed and the vendors' counterclaim succeeds in principle.