“Selective Summary-Judgment” Doctrine in Deceit Actions:
Giwa v JNFX Ltd & Others [2025] EWCA Civ 961

Introduction

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Giwa v JNFX Ltd & Ors reshapes the boundaries of summary judgment in tortious deceit cases, particularly where multiple contracts and questions of ostensible authority are intertwined. Mr Giwa, a Nigerian currency broker, sued JNFX Ltd for roughly NGN 7.9 billion (≈ US $16 m at 2020–21 rates) after ten FX transactions arranged through Mr Ashay Mervyn (purportedly acting for JNFX) left a US $16 m shortfall. The High Court granted summary judgment in full. On appeal, the Court:

• Upholds summary judgment only for the tenth contract (NGN 4.921 billion);
• Sets aside judgment for contracts 1–9, allowing them to proceed to trial; and
• Clarifies when partial summary judgment is appropriate in deceit claims, the evidential threshold for falsity and reliance, and the test for ostensible authority.

Summary of the Judgment

Henderson LJ (with Sir Launcelot Henderson and Arnold LJ concurring) ruled that:

1. Contract 10 showed overwhelming evidence of deceit — zero dollars were delivered, fake wire confirmations were produced, and JNFX directors personally confirmed the payment date. Summary judgment therefore stands for NGN 4.921 billion plus 8% compound interest.
2. For contracts 1–9 the evidential picture was “far from clear”. Shortfalls were sporadic, some contracts were over-paid, funds were “netted off” across different clients, and Mr Giwa himself continued trading. A trial is needed to decide:
• whether deceitful representations were made,
• their falsity at the time of each contract, and
• the measure of loss.
3. Mr Mervyn acted with ostensible authority for contract 10: JNFX’s directors directly confirmed the deal and never disclaimed his role.
4. JNFX’s web-posted standard terms were not incorporated; mere existence on a website does not bind counterparties in informal FX trades.
5. A tort claimant cannot recover where it received greater value than it paid (illustrated by contract 9, where $9 m was received for ~$8.8 m equivalent Naira).

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

• Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) – governing principles for summary judgment; courts may evaluate evidence but must avoid a “mini-trial”.
• Doncaster Pharmaceuticals [2006] EWCA Civ 661 – summary judgment reserved for straight-forward cases; caution when fuller evidence is expected at trial.
• Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell [2021] UKSC 3 – reiterated the prohibition on resolving disputed facts prematurely.
• Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park [1964] QB 480 – classical statement of ostensible authority; widely applied by the Court.
• Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1986] AC 717 – limitation on apparent authority where the third party “knows” of restrictions.
• Philipp v Barclays Bank [2023] UKSC 25 – reasonable-enquiry requirement for relying on ostensible authority.

These authorities collectively buttressed the Court’s cautious, contract-by-contract approach, distinguishing where evidence was “overwhelming” from where alternative explanations were “reasonably arguable”.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Dissecting the Evidence Contract-by-Contract
   The Court refused to treat a multi-transaction relationship as an indivisible whole. It emphasised: “At some point honest trading became dishonest trading; pinpointing that point requires a trial.” (Judgment ¶71–72)
2. Falsity & Intention
   Deceit demands that a representation be false when acted on. Complete non-performance plus fake confirmations rendered Mr Mervyn’s intent “plainly false” for contract 10, whereas partial performance and netting-off blurred the picture for earlier deals.
3. Reliance & Tort Measure of Loss
   The Court highlighted a nuanced but under-litigated point: in deceit damages align with the position absent the tort. Because MultiChoice actually profited on contract 9 (+$0.13 m), no tortious loss was suffered, even though contractual damages may still lie.
4. Ostensible Authority Re-affirmed
   Passive acquiescence (letting an employee trade) suffices, but here there was active confirmation by directors. Boiler-plate disclaimers hidden in e-mail footers could not neutralise clear, direct representations.
5. Website Terms
   Incorporation requires clear referencing at the time of contracting or a proven course of dealing — not merely public availability on a website. This clarifies e-commerce practice for FX and payment firms.

C. Impact of the Decision

• “Selective Summary-Judgment” Doctrine
  Courts can and should grant summary judgment only for those discrete contracts where evidential hurdles are demonstrably surmounted, leaving others to trial. Practitioners must therefore plead and evidence each contract distinctly.
• Heightened Pleading Standards in Deceit
  Claimants must articulate and prove falsity and reliance per transaction; aggregated “course-of-dealing” arguments invite dismissal.
• Ostensible Authority in FinTech & FX
  Firms cannot rely on small-print disclaimers to sidestep liability if senior officers validate trades. Compliance teams should ensure prompt repudiation of unauthorised promises.
• Tort v. Contract Damages
  The Court’s reminder that deceit damages exclude profitable bargains may curb over-inflated tort claims where partial satisfaction occurred.
• Digital Terms & Conditions
  Publishing T&Cs on a website is insufficient. Explicit assent mechanisms (click-wrap, signed documents, etc.) are essential for incorporation — a warning for online payment providers.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Summary Judgment (CPR Part 24) – a fast-track procedure allowing courts to dispose of a claim/defence without trial where it has “no real prospect of success”. The court must avoid deciding disputed facts that need oral evidence.
• Deceit (Fraudulent Misrepresentation) – requires (1) a representation, (2) knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard, (3) intention to induce reliance, (4) actual reliance, and (5) resulting loss.
• Ostensible (Apparent) Authority – where a principal’s words or conduct lead a third party to believe an agent is authorised. Liability flows even if actual authority is absent.
• Netting-Off – informal practice of offsetting obligations across multiple transactions, common in parallel FX markets, complicating proof of specific funding flows.
• Measure of Damages in Tort vs. Contract
  • Contract: put claimant in the position as if the promise was performed.
  • Tort (deceit): put claimant in the position as if the fraud had never occurred (can be lower or higher than contractual expectation).

Conclusion

Giwa v JNFX Ltd is more than a saga of missing dollars; it delivers principled guidance on:

• the granular, transaction-specific analysis demanded in deceit claims;
• the permissible scope of summary judgment where factual mosaics are incomplete;
• the robustness of ostensible authority when senior officers actively condone an agent’s dealings; and
• the insufficiency of passive, web-based disclaimers to shield financial firms.

Future litigants should expect courts to dissect multi-contract relationships one-by-one, granting accelerated judgment only where evidence is “overwhelming” and leaving the rest to the crucible of trial. FinTech and FX companies must tighten internal governance — directors’ casual e-mail assurances can bind the firm just as surely as wet-ink signatures.