Rescission for misrepresentation: a lower hurdle for claimants in cases of fraud
Written By
Partner
UK
I am a partner and co-head of our International Dispute Resolution Group, as well as the London team. I specialise in complex disputes, often of a cross border nature, and have particular expertise in the aviation & defence sector, commercial life science, and in matters involving fraud.
Those seeking to unravel a contract on the basis of a pre-contractual fraudulent statement will not have to show that the statement in question was the reason they entered into the contract in order to succeed in their claim. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that it will be enough for a claimant to show that the false statement "materially influenced" their decision to enter into a contract, or that it was "actively present to his mind" to prove that they were induced by the statement[1].
The test for inducement where there is no fraud – i.e. where false statements and assurances were given negligently but not deliberately or recklessly – is stricter. To succeed in claiming damages or rescinding a contract in such cases, a claimant will still need to show that it would not have entered into the contract with the defendant but for the relevant statements.
Latest insights
More Insights
Quincecare Duty in the Age of Automated Screening - Navigating Uncharted Territory in Hong Kong
9 minutes Aug 21 2025
A decision of epic proportions: Federal Court finds that app store providers contravened Australia’s competition laws
Aug 14 2025
When Foreign Laws Collide with Local Claims: How Hong Kong Courts Now Handle Restitutionary Claims Tainted by Foreign Illegality
7 minutes Jul 31 2025