One of the key ingredients for a successful claim in fraudulent misrepresentation is the claimant proving that they relied on false representations in entering into a contract. In a recent interlocutory decision in the “NOx” litigation arising from the Volkswagen emissions scandal (Anthony Crossley and others v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and others) the High Court grappled with the following question in this regard: whether the claimant must plead and prove that they were “actively and consciously aware” of the representation in question, or as the court described it, the “awareness condition”.
Fraudulent misrepresentation and the awareness condition: will the Court of Appeal bring certainty?
Justice by swings and roundabouts – any escape from fixed costs in an exceptional case?
Justice administered by swings and roundabouts may not be thought of as the recognised way in which cases are decided in the courts of England and Wales, but where small disputes are involved, that is the means by which the costs of bringing most such matters before a judge are disposed of. That might be thought odd. After all, the English and Welsh legal system is recognised world wide as being fair and incorruptible, so it may appear counter-intuitive in that when the time comes to tot up the costs, what you get if you win and what your liability will be if you lose, is based upon a system of taking the rough with the smooth, as opposed to a precise analysis of how much it has cost the winner to succeed and what figure is a fair one for the loser to pay.
Death and contingent agreements (Part 2): Contingency Fee Agreements and Damages-based Agreements
There is a fundamental difference between Conditional Fee Agreements on the one hand, and Contingency Fee Agreements and Damages-based Agreements (DBAs) on the other hand, in that with Conditional Fee Agreements the charge is still related to the amount of work done, whereas with Contingency Fee Agreements and DBAs that is not the case.