From: Lee, James <james.lee@kcl.ac.uk>
To: obligations@uwo.ca
ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
Date: 27/07/2016 12:39:32 UTC
Subject: Misrepresentation and Rescission in the UK Supreme Court

Dear Colleagues,

Further to ODG/RDG e-mails today about other decisions of interest, the UK Supreme Court has also given judgment in Hayward v Zurich Insurance [2016] UKSC 48 https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0099-judgment.pdf. This case concerts ingredients of the tort of deceit and the circumstances in which rescission can be granted for misrepresentation, in particular inducement and causation where the representee may not believe the representation. It was in the context of a personal injury claim which was settled, but it was later discovered that the claimant had dishonestly exaggerated his symptoms for financial gain. The court allows the appeal and the settlement could be set aside. Lord Clarke holds that it "is sufficient for the misrepresentation to be an inducing cause and that it is not necessary for it to be the sole cause" (at [33]), (adopting the language of "material cause"), and also refers approvingly to the article in last year's LQR by Hon KR Handley on "Causation in Misrepresentation", and concludes (at [40]):

"As explained above, the questions whether Zurich was induced to enter into the settlement agreement and whether doing so caused it loss are questions of fact, which were correctly decided in its favour by the judge. I accept the submission that the fact that the representee (Zurich) does not wholly credit the fraudster (Mr Hayward) and carries out its own investigations does not preclude it from having been induced by those representations. Qualified belief or disbelief does not rule out inducement, particularly where those investigations were never going to find out the evidence that subsequently came to light. That depended only on the fact that Mr and Mrs Cox subsequently came forward. Only then did Zurich find out the true position. As Mr Hayward knew, Zurich was settling on a false basis."

Lord Clarke leaves open whether a representee who knows that a representation is untrue can ever succeed. Lord Toulson issues a concurring judgment.

Best wishes,

James

--
James Lee
Senior Lecturer in Private Law
Acting Director of UG Admissions and Scholarships

The Dickson Poon School of Law
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS


E-mail: james.lee@kcl.ac.uk

Profile: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/law/people/academic/j-lee.aspx