Actionable misrepresentation and negligent misstatement

The Practice Notes in this subtopic consider claims brought for misrepresentation (whether innocent, negligent or fraudulently made) and for negligent misstatement and the tort of deceit; and the various exclusions of liability, defences and remedies that may be available.

What is a misrepresentation and comparison with similar claims

A claim for misrepresentation arises where one party to a contract (the representor) made an untrue statement of fact that induced the other (the representee) to enter into the contract.

Claims for misrepresentation are governed by both the common law and the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (MA 1967).

Where there has been a misrepresentation, the representee has a right to rescind the contract whether the misrepresentation was made:

  1. fraudulently—where the misrepresentation was made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth. The claimant may have the contract rescinded and seek damages

  2. negligently—where the misrepresentation was made carelessly or without the representor having reasonable grounds for believing its truth. Under MA 1967, s 2(1) the claimant may seek rescission and/or damages

  3. innocently—where a misrepresentation was made but the representor can show

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Withholding DSAR documents from inspection during data protection proceedings by relying on a Data Protection Act 2018 exemption (Cole v Marlborough College)

Information Law analysis: This claim relates to the scope of production and the application of the exemptions to production of personal data in responding fully to a subject access request. The Claimant, Thomas Cole (Cole), who was a student at the Defendant school, Marlborough College (the College), submitted a data subject access request (DSAR) under Article 15 of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR) after he was removed from the school following his involvement in a physical altercation with another student. In this half-day case management hearing, Mr Justice Nicklin assessed whether the College was entitled to withhold, in whole or part, documents containing Cole’s personal data, rather than providing the material for inspection ahead of a two-day trial on the data protection claim expected to start in mid-2025. The court held that the College was entitled to withhold some documents (containing Cole’s personal data) on the grounds of the exemption in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, Part 3 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). In short, this exemption provides that a controller is not obliged to disclose information to a data subject where doing so involves disclosing information that relates to another individual who can be identified from that information, whether as the source of information or as the subject of such information. Written by Robyn Bond, associate at Ropes & Gray International LLP.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents