Global InformationRoyscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson information
| Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Decided | 21 March 1991 |
| Citations | [1991] EWCA Civ 12, [1991] 2 QB 297; [1991] 3 WLR 57; [1992] RTR 99 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Balcombe and Ralph Gibson LJJ |
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] EWCA Civ 12 is an English contract law case on misrepresentation. It examines the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and addresses the extent of damages available under s 2(1) for negligent misrepresentation.
The court controversially decided that under the Act, the appropriate measure of damages was the same as that for common law fraud, or damages for all losses flowing from a misrepresentation, even if unforeseeable. The reasoning of the decision has been much criticised by academic lawyers such as Treitel and Hooley,[1] partly for its overly literal interpretation of the statute, and for its dubious finding of fact that a deliberately false document was made negligently, rather than fraudulently.[citation needed]
- ^ R Hooley, 'Damages and the Misrepresentation Act 1967' (1991) 107 LQR 547, : Hooley argues that fraud and negligence are qualitatively different and should be treated differently in order to reflect fraud's greater moral culpability. He says the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s 2(1) establishes only liability in damages but not their quantum, so Royscott was a poor decision.