Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) v Sweeney
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 May 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 1060 (Ch) |
| Date | 27 May 2002 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
CHANCERY DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Park
Contract - misrepresentation - remedy available for damages but not injunctive relief - equitable set off - conduct of parties - Courage Ltd v Crehan (Case C-453/99)(Times, 4 October 2001) [1999] 2 EGLR 145 at 156 - EC Treaty Article 81 - Misrepresentation Act 1967 Section 2(1) - CPR 1998 Rule 44.3 (4)(a)
The remedy available under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act, 1967 was limited to damages; the section could not be used to defend a claim for injunctive relief.
Mr Justice Park so held in the Chancery Division when allowing the claim for an injunction brought by the landlords, Inntreprenneur Pub Company (CPC) and Inntreprenneur Pub Properties Gamma Ltd, to compel a tenant of one of its pubs, Mr Duncan Sweeney, to comply with a beer tie that they had negotiated in relation to the pub with a third party supplier and which was a term of the tenant's lease.
The tenant contended that the court should refuse the landlord's claim on the grounds, inter alia, that the landlords had misrepresented to him in the negotiation prior to the contract that he would be released from the tie in 1998 and that, as such, whether under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, or common law negligence, the tenant was entitled to a defence against the injunctive relief sought by the landlords; he also sought damages on the same grounds.
Furthermore, he claimed an equitable set-off for damages which arose from a separate action he had brought against the landlords, such claim being founded on the ground that the tie breached article 81 (ex article 85) of the EC Treaty.
The action was currently stayed pending the final outcome of Courage Ltd v Crehan (Case C-453/99)TLR (The Times October 4, 2001). The European Court of Justice had ruled there that damages were potentially available for article 81 claims, but the case had still not yet returned to the Court of Appeal.
Mr Kim Lewison, QC and Mr Martin Rodger for the landlords; Mr Jonathan Brock, QC, for the tenant.
MR JUSTICE PARK said that it was clear from section 2(1) that the only remedy afforded by the section was damages. Furthermore, the remedy for negligent misstatement at common law was similarly limited to damages alone.
It was still possible in equity for a party, who had been induced to enter into a contract by an innocent misrepresentation, to rescind the contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd
...Pub Co v East Crown Limited [2000] 2 Lloyd's Law Reports 612 and the reasoning of Mr Justice Park in Inntrepreneur Pub Co v Sweeney [2002] EWHC 1060 (Chancery); [2002] EGLR 591 Mr Tomlinson submits that whatever was said at the meeting on 14th May does not constitute "prior negotiations" fo......
-
PW & Company v Milton Gate Investments Ltd
...and The Indian Grace) (No 2) [1998] AC 878; [1997] 3 WLR 818; [1997] 4 All ER 380, HL(E) Inntrepreneur Pub Co (CPC) v Sweeney [2002] EWHC 1060 (Ch); [2002] 2 EGLR Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29; [1965] 2 WLR 212; [1965] 1 All ER 446, CA Mellor v Watkins (1874) LR 9 QB 400 Melluish v BMI (No......
-
Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd & Others
...the term 'misrepresentation' will not include statements of future intent or predictions for the future; see, for example, Inntrepreneur Pub Co (CPC) v Sweeney [2002] E.G.L.R 132 at paragraph 62. This is in turn based on the principle espoused by Sir G. Mellish LJ in Beattie v Lord Ebury [1......
-
Navilluso Holdings Ltd v Davidson Hc Nap
...quotation the word “thrashing” has replaced “threshing” which appeared incorrectly in the report: see Inntrepreneur Pub Co v Sweeney [2002] 2 EGLR 132 at 29 Above at [10]. 30 Illegal Contracts Act 1970, s 11(a). 31 F M Brookfield “Restrictive Covenants In Gross” [1970] NZLJ 67 at 70. ...