Invertec Ltd v De Mol Holding BV & Anor [2009] EWHC 2471
Citation: Invertec Ltd v De Mol Holding BV & Anor [2009] EWHC 2471
Rule of thumb: IF an agent passes on fraudulent communications by their principal, can the agent be held responsible for these? As a general rule, no, however, if the agent knew they were fraudulent, or ought to have known they were fraudulent, then they can be made liable themselves.
Judgment:
Where an agent makes fraudulent misrepresentations, and they knew or should have known they were fraudulent, then they can be held to be personally liable for these, ‘The fraudulent misrepresentations I have found established were largely made by Mr de Mol on behalf of DMH. He was the sole negotiator on behalf of DMH, and he signed the transaction documents on behalf of DMH. To the extent that the representations were made by Mr de Wit, Mr de Mol authorised Mr de Wit to make them. Mr de Mol knew that the representations were false and he made, or authorised Mr de Wit to make them, dishonestly. It follows that Mr de Mol is personally liable for the fraudulent misrepresentations: see Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp (Nos 2 and 4) [2002]’, Arnold J
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.