Court of Appeal
Published January 8, 2008
Contex Drouzhba Ltd v Wiseman and Another

A director’s signature on a document containing a fraudulent representation made by him was sufficient evidence in writing for an action in deceit.

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Rix and Lord Justice Keene) so stated on November 20, 2007 dismissing the appeal of Mr Ronald Wiseman, director of Lucci del Marco Ltd, against Mr Justice Irwin ([2006] EWHC 2708 (QB)) who held there had been an implied fraudulent representation in a contract he signed with Contex Drouzbha Ltd.

LORD JUSTICE WALLER said that Lord Tenterden’s Act, the Statute of Frauds (Amendment) Act 1828, required writing as proof of representations as to credit or solvency. It was not concerned with excusing fraudulent behaviour or with differentiating between capacities in which persons put their names to documents.

If a document contained a fraudulent representation being made by a director for which that director would otherwise be held personally liable, his signature on the document would suffice to comply with section 6 of the 1828 Act.

From the requirement of a representation, whether express or implied, to be in writing must flow the conclusion that a representation by conduct alone would be defeated by the Act.

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers