In English law, fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when one party knowingly makes a false statement, or recklessly disregards its truth, inducing another party to enter into a contract.
A fraudulent misrepresentation involves intentional deception or reckless disregard for the truth, causing the misled party to rely on false statements to their detriment.
Fraudulent misrepresentation doctrine ensures integrity and fairness in transactions, deterring intentional deceit in commercial dealings.
Caldwell sold his Jaguar to Norris, who paid with a worthless cheque and absconded. Caldwell immediately informed police and the AA to trace the car. The Court of Appeal held that where a fraudulent buyer deliberately absconds, the defrauded seller can rescind the contract without communicating directly with the fraudster, thereby defeating later innocent purchasers' claims.
A rogue named Blenkarn fraudulently posed as the reputable firm 'Blenkiron & Co' to obtain handkerchiefs from Lindsay & Co, then sold them to innocent purchaser Cundy. The House of Lords held the contract void for mistake as to identity, meaning title never passed and Cundy had to return the goods.
Directors of a tramway company issued a prospectus stating the company had the right to use steam power, when in fact this required Board of Trade consent. Sir Henry Peek purchased shares relying on this statement. The House of Lords held that an action for deceit requires proof of fraud, meaning a false statement made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly.
Mr Doyle was fraudulently induced to purchase an ironmonger's business through false representations about turnover, staffing and trade composition. The Court of Appeal held that damages for deceit should compensate for all actual loss directly flowing from the fraud, not merely contractual expectation loss, increasing damages from £1,500 to £5,500.
The plaintiffs purchased a hairdressing salon after the defendant falsely represented he would not work at his nearby competing salon. When business declined due to the defendant's continued local practice, the plaintiffs claimed damages for fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court of Appeal confirmed that loss of profits is recoverable in deceit actions.
Three sisters sold their car to a rogue who falsely claimed to be P.G.M. Hutchinson of Caterham, a genuine person they verified in the telephone directory. The rogue paid by worthless cheque and sold the car to a bona fide purchaser. The Court held no contract existed as the offer was made only to the real Hutchinson.
Mr Lewis sold his car to a rogue who fraudulently impersonated the film actor Richard Greene. The rogue then sold the car to Mr Averay, an innocent purchaser. The Court of Appeal held that the contract between Lewis and the rogue was voidable for fraud, not void for mistake, so title passed to Averay.
The Playboy Club sought to bring a deceit claim against BNL after losing a negligence claim concerning a fraudulent credit reference provided by a bank employee. The Court of Appeal held it was not an abuse of process to bring the separate deceit claim, as significant new evidence emerged during the negligence trial.
Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo were convicted of conspiracy to defraud for attempting to manipulate LIBOR and EURIBOR benchmark interest rates to benefit their derivatives trading. The Supreme Court allowed their appeals, finding that trial judges wrongly directed juries that taking account of trading advantage necessarily meant submissions were not genuine opinions as a matter of law, when this was a factual question for the jury.
Smith was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations to purchase Ferranti shares at an inflated price. The shares later collapsed in value due to an unrelated pre-existing fraud. The House of Lords held that in deceit, the plaintiff may recover all losses directly flowing from the fraudulent transaction, not limited to the transaction date valuation.
Mr Downton falsely told Mrs Wilkinson, as a practical joke, that her husband had been badly injured, causing her severe nervous shock and physical illness. The court held that a wilful act calculated to cause physical harm, and actually causing it, is actionable.
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive