Maria Helena Groen & Ors v Martin Charles Heath
[2024] EWHC 1654 (Ch)
Lowry Trading Limited & Anor v Musicalize Ltd & Ors
29 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 142 (Comm)
High Court
Two companies sued a music promoter for lying to get loans. The court ruled in favor of the companies because the promoter faked documents and made false promises about concert ticket sales to get more money. Even though the companies were sophisticated investors, the court said the lies were a key reason why the companies gave more money, and the promoter couldn't successfully deny it.
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.
Similar Cases
Njord Partners SMA-Seal LP & Ors v Astir Maritime Ltd & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1682 (Comm)
L & S Accounting Firm Umbrella Limited (In liquidation) v Idusogie Laurel Oronsaye & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1919 (Ch)
Balber Kaur Takhar v Gracefield Developments Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1714 (Ch)
Sean Richard Ormsby Lindsay v Penny O’Loughnane & Anor (Re FX Solutions Ltd (in liquidation))
[2023] EWHC 2247 (Ch)