Key Facts
- •Lowry Trading Limited and SAS Financing Limited (Claimants) sought summary judgment against Musicalize Ltd and the Andersons (Defendants) for deceit.
- •Claimants alleged Defendants falsely portrayed themselves as concert promoters to secure loans.
- •First Claimant claimed £500,000 (Third Lowry Payment) based on forged documents.
- •Second Claimant claimed £5,151,259 (excluding earlier payments) based on false Snoop Dogg ticket sales and profit projections.
- •Defendants argued their business model was genuine, hampered by COVID-19 and personal circumstances.
- •Defendants claimed lack of intent to deceive and lack of reliance by Claimants.
- •Defendants argued repayment of £500,000 discharged the First Claimant's debt.
- •Court considered evidence of forged documents, emails, and WhatsApp messages implicating both Andersons.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment can be granted if the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
CPR 24.2(a)(ii)
Test for dishonesty (Ivey v Genting Casinos): Subjective assessment of the individual's knowledge or belief, considering the objective standards of ordinary decent people.
Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd [2017] UKSC 67
Caution should be exercised before depriving a party of the opportunity to rebut allegations of dishonest conduct.
Allied Fort Insurance Services Ltd v Ahmed [2015] EWCA Civ 841
Elements of deceit: false representation, knowledge of falsity or recklessness, intent to induce reliance, reliance, and loss.
Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 24th Edn
In deceit, the fraudulent representation need only be a real and substantial part in inducing the claimant's actions.
Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2009] EWCA Civ 169
A debtor can appropriate a payment to a particular debt, but this requires communication to the creditor.
Chitty on Contracts, 35th Edn
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted to First Claimant for £500,000 plus interest.
Court found forged documents, and the Andersons' involvement, establishing deceit and reliance.
Summary judgment granted to Second Claimant for £5,151,259.
Court found false Snoop Dogg representations, dishonesty, and inducement, despite the complexity of multiple representations and contractual obligations.