opinion. It surely makes more sense to construe the words ‘so liable’ in s2(1) as merely referring to the general existence of damages under s2(1), which had formerly only existed in respect of fraudulent misrepresentation rather than as importing all the rules of fraud into what is, at root, a negligence action. In Smith New Court Ltd v Citibank NA, Lord Steyn at the very least raised a critical eyebrow. ‘The question is whether the rather loose wording of [s 2(1)] compels the court to treat a person who was morally innocent as if he was guilty of fraud when it comes to the measure of damages. There has been trenchant academic criticism of the Royscott case: see Richard Hooley ... (1991) 107 LQR 547. Since this point does not directly arise in the present case, I express no concluded view on the correctness of the decision in Royscott’. Of course, fact that fraud rules on damages and remoteness of loss apply to an action under s2(1) does not mean that all the rules applicable to actions for deceit are also applicable. For example, there may be different rules for the purposes of limitation of actions. Much of the law in relation to damages for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations have been reviewed recently by the House of Lords in Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Citibank NA (originally Scrimgeour Vickers Ltd and Another). The case concerned the losses caused by the dramatic fall in

1995 ◽  
pp. 717-717
Keyword(s):  
House Of Lords ◽  
General Existence ◽  
The Law ◽  
Limitation Of Actions ◽  
Dramatic Fall ◽  
As If
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document