Tort of Deceit in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd (t/a Colmans of Norwich) v Borden Inc. and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 08 Febrero 1990

    First, he must establish a goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services which he supplies in the mind of the purchasing public by association with the identifying "get-up" (whether it consists simply of a brand name or a trade description, or the individual features of labelling or packaging) under which his particular goods or services are offered to the public, such that the get-up is recognised by the public as distinctive specifically of the plaintiff's goods or services.

  • Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc
    • Supreme Court
    • 27 Julio 2016

    It must be shown that the defendant made a materially false representation which was intended to, and did, induce the representee to act to its detriment. To my mind it is not necessary, as a matter of law, to prove that the representee believed that the representation was true. For example, if the representee does not believe that the representation is true, he may have serious difficulty in establishing that he was induced to enter into the contract or that he has suffered loss as a result.

  • Conlon v Simms
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 Diciembre 2006

    130. However, the judge went on to say (in paragraph 202 of his judgment) that where the breach of the duty of disclosure is fraudulent, a party to whom the duty is owed who suffers loss by reason of the breach may recover damages for that loss in the tort of deceit. Once again, I respectfully agree with him. Non-disclosure where there is a duty to disclose is tantamount to an implied representation that there is nothing relevant to disclose.

  • Dornoch Ltd v Mauritius Union Assurance Company Ltd
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 19 Agosto 2005

    The antecedent facts concerning the true situation in MCB are important, but it is what is done with those facts that really matters so far as the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit is concerned. In short, it is (on the assumptions I have made) MCB's decision not to tell the facts as they are and to continue to mislead that matters most, not the true facts themselves.

  • Cassa Di Risparmio Della Repubblica Di San Marino Spa (Applicant/ Claimant) v Barclays Bank Plc (Respondent/ Defendant)
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 09 Marzo 2011

    In order to determine whether any and if so what representation was made by a statement requires (1) construing the statement in the context in which it was made, and (2) interpreting the statement objectively according to the impact it might be expected to have on a reasonable representee in the position and with the known characteristics of the actual representee: see Raiffeisen, supra, at [81]; Kyle Bay Ltd v Underwriters Subscribing under Policy No. 01957/08/01 [2007] Lloyd's Rep IR 460, 466, at [30]–[33], per Neuberger LJ.

  • Reed Executive Plc v Reed Solutions Plc
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 03 Marzo 2004

    The notion here is conceptually different from the "substantial proportion of the public" test applied in passing off (see e.g. Neutrogena v Golden [1996] RPC 473). The "average consumer" is a notional individual whereas the substantial proportion test involves a statistical assessment, necessarily crude. Whichever approach one uses, one is essentially doing the same thing – forming an overall ("global") assessment as to whether there is likely to be significant consumer confusion.

  • British Telecommunications Plc v One in A Million Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 Julio 1998

    A name which will, by reason of its similarity to the name of another, inherently lead to passing-off is such an instrument. If it would not inherently lead to passing-off, it does not follow that it is not an instrument of fraud. If it be the intention of the defendant to appropriate the goodwill of another or enable others to do so, I can see no reason why the court should not infer that it will happen, even if there is a possibility that such an appropriation would not take place.

See all results
  • Bankrupt and Insolvent Act 1857
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 1857
    ... ... contracted any of his Debts by means of any false Representation, Deceit, or Contrivance, and if the Court shall be satisfied with the Conduct of ... , or in any other Action for a malicious Injury, or in any Action of Tort or Trespass, where it shall appear to the Satisfaction of the Court that ... ...
  • Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Act 1836
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 1836
    ... ... Ten Pounds in all other Cases whatsoever, (Slander, Libel, Deceit, and Criminal Conversation ... with a Man's Wife only excepted,) and also ... S-XXIV ... Executors de son tort to be liable. XXIV Executors de son tort to be liable ... XXIV. And be ... ...
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
  • Insurance Fraud and the Role of the Civil Law
    • No. 80-3, May 2017
    • The Modern Law Review
    Two UK Supreme Court decisions have considered insurance fraud. The first, Versloot Dredging BV v HDI‐Gerling Industries Versicherung (The DC Merwestone), concerned the use of a fraudulent device b...
    ... ... to settle a claim, is entitled to set aside the settlement under the tort of deceit where it subsequently discovers proof that it was in fact ... ...
  • Measures in Misrepresentation: Recent Steps in Awarding Damages
    • No. 55-5, September 1992
    • The Modern Law Review
    ... ... only allowed damages for fraudulent misrepresentation in the tort of deceit'; the only remedy for innocent or negligent ... ...
    • No. 10-1, January 1947
    • The Modern Law Review
    ... ... A dilemma arises frequently in the United States in tort actions against Government officers. On the one hand it must ... ) an action for breach will lie as for the tort of deceit; (c) damages for mental injury to be limited by ... ...
  • Armitage v Nurse & Others
    • No. 5-3, March 1997
    • Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance
    • 272-275
    The Appellant in this case, referred to throughout the Court of Appeal's judgment as ‘Paula’, was the principal beneficiary under a settlement which contained a trustee exemption clause in the foll...
    ... ... "actual fraud" in Clause 15 is not used to describe the common law tort of deceit. As the Judge appre-ciated it simply means dishonesty. I accept ... ...
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT