- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smith New Court Securities v. Scrimgeour Vickers
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, a stock-broking firm and market maker, purchased 28,141,424 shares in Company B on 21 July 1989 for approximately £23.1 million. The purchase was induced by oral statements made that morning by a senior employee of the Defendant bank, acting through its brokerage subsidiary. Those statements falsely suggested that there were rival bidders and disclosed fabricated bid prices. Unbeknown to all parties, Company B had already been the victim of a substantial internal fraud, the discovery of which in September 1989 caused the share price to collapse. Between November 1989 and April 1990 the Appellant sold all the shares for about £11.8 million, crystallising a loss of roughly £11.3 million.
The Appellant sued for deceit in the Chancery Division. Judge Chadwick found that two of the three impugned representations were fraudulently made and had induced the purchase; he awarded damages of £10,764,005. The Court of Appeal upheld liability but, applying a “date-of-transaction” valuation, reduced damages to about £1.1 million. Both sides appealed to the House of Lords—the Appellant on damages, the Defendant on liability.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Defendant’s employee made fraudulent misrepresentations that induced the share purchase.
- What is the correct measure of damages for property acquired in reliance on fraudulent misrepresentation: (a) the difference between contract price and market value on the transaction date, or (b) all losses directly flowing from the transaction, including subsequent diminution in value?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Defendant’s employee knowingly made three false representations, all of which induced the purchase.
- Damages in deceit are not confined to foreseeable loss or to the value on the transaction date; the Appellant is entitled to recover the full loss realised on resale because it was “locked into” the shares by the fraud.
Defendant's Arguments
- The first alleged representation was never made; the trial judge erred in accepting any of the statements as fraudulent.
- Even if liability were established, damages must be assessed at the contract date; losses attributable to the later discovery of Company B’s internal fraud are too remote and not caused by the Defendant’s misrepresentation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd. [1969] 2 QB 158 | Fraudster must make reparation for all loss directly flowing from the deceit; foreseeability irrelevant. | Adopted as the governing approach to damages, displacing rigid “transaction-date” valuation. |
| Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1880) 5 App Cas 25 | Compensatory principle and stricter treatment of intentional wrongdoers. | Quoted to justify awarding broader damages against a fraudulent defendant. |
| Clark v. Urquhart [1930] AC 28 | Doubts on 19th-century valuation rule; endorses “actual damage directly flowing” test. | Used to support departure from fixed market-value assessment. |
| Potts v. Miller (1940) 64 CLR 282 | Critique of rigid “date of contract” rule; importance of full compensation. | Cited with approval in re-stating modern law. |
| Twycross v. Grant (1877) 2 CPD 469 | Illustrative example of latent defect affecting value after sale. | Used to discuss causation and remoteness analogies. |
| Waddell v. Blockey (1879) 4 QBD 678 | Traditional rule valuing shares at contract date. | Identified as “inflexible” and rejected. |
| Peek v. Derry (1887) 37 Ch D 541 | Historical share-fraud valuation approach. | Placed in historical context and disapproved. |
| McConnel v. Wright [1903] 1 Ch 546 | Exception where the defendant’s fraud creates a “false market.” | Distinguished; here the market distortion stemmed from a third party. |
| East v. Maurer [1991] 1 WLR 461 | Consequential loss (e.g., lost profits) recoverable in deceit. | Reinforced breadth of recoverable heads of loss. |
| Downs v. Chappell [1996] 3 All ER 344 | Applied Doyle; debated “cross-check” against hypothetical value. | Quoted; House questioned its additional “qualification” test. |
| Banque Bruxelles Lambert v. Eagle Star [1996] 3 WLR 87 | Contrasted negligence and fraud in measuring misrepresentation damages. | Confirmed fraud is a “special category” following Doyle. |
| Johnson v. Agnew [1980] AC 367 | Flexibility to choose assessment date to achieve justice. | Relied on to justify departing from contract-date valuation. |
| IBL Ltd. v. Coussens [1991] 2 All ER 133 | Alternative assessment dates in conversion. | Analogous support for flexibility. |
| Dodd Properties v. Canterbury CC [1980] 1 WLR 433 | Flexibility in negligence damages timing. | Analogous support for flexible assessment. |
| County Personnel v. Alan R. Pulver & Co. [1987] 1 WLR 916 | Assessment date not “mechanistic.” | Cited to show valuation date is not rigid. |
| Royscot Trust v. Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297 | Statutory misrepresentation treated as fraud for damages. | House expressed no view on correctness; referenced in discussion. |
| The Wagon Mound [1961] AC 388 | Foreseeability test for negligence remoteness. | Contrasted with wider rule for deceit. |
| Yorkshire Dale SS Co. v. Minister of War Transport [1942] AC 691 | “Common-sense” causation test. | Adopted as part of causation analysis. |
| Cemp Properties v. Dentsply R&D Corp. [1991] 2 EGLR 197 | Illustration of direct-loss approach without valuation. | Supports choosing realised loss over market valuation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Liability. The House accepted concurrent findings that the Defendant’s employee made two fraudulent statements at a noon meeting: (i) that competing sealed bids would be disclosed, and (ii) that two named buyers had already bid at 81p and 75-77p. These lies induced the Appellant to bid 82½p. The first alleged morning representation was held insufficiently proved, but this did not affect liability because the noon statements were decisive.
Measure of damages. Rejecting the Court of Appeal’s reliance on a rigid “transaction-date” rule, the House held:
- The governing principle in deceit is full reparation for all loss directly flowing from the fraudulent transaction (Doyle v. Olby).
- Foreseeability does not limit recovery against a wilful wrongdoer.
- Valuing the asset on the transaction date is only a prima facie method; it must yield where it would under-compensate.
- Here the shares were already “pregnant with loss” because of the undiscovered internal fraud. The Appellant, having bought as a market-making risk, was “locked in” and could not reasonably sell before the collapse. The subsequent fall was therefore causally connected and a direct consequence of the Defendant’s deceit.
- Actual resale proceeds (£11.8 million) were the appropriate “benefit” to credit against the purchase price.
- No failure to mitigate was shown; the Appellant’s retention and gradual sale of the shares were reasonable.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed. The trial judge’s award of £10,764,005 in damages for deceit was restored.
Implications: The decision re-affirms that in actions for fraudulent misrepresentation United Kingdom courts will award compensation for the entire loss directly caused, unconstrained by foreseeability or rigid valuation dates. It clarifies that the “transaction-date” rule is only a guideline and that realised losses may be preferred where a claimant is effectively locked into the asset by the fraud. The judgment strengthens deterrence of commercial fraud but does not create a new separate cause of action.
Alert