Estoppel
Estoppel
Mr Bonnier argued that CVS should be estopped from relying on the Representations and referred me to Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386. I see no force in this.
The issue in Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd was whether the representee could claim that he relied on the representations where the terms of the contract itself, which he signed, clarified the true nature of the product, thereby correcting the original representation. It was not a fraud case. It is not material.
- Heading
- Introduction
- CVS’s witnesses
- Mr Smith
- Mr McQuade
- Mr Sargent
- Mr Foy
- Mr Hendren
- The facts
- Procedural history
- The Debarring Order
- Mr Bonnier’s Article 6 rights
- Mr Joel Hogarth
- Standard of Proof
- CVS’s case
- The Honest Belief in Investment Representation
- The Conditions Precedent Representation
- The Negotiations Representation
- Falsity
- Knowledge
- Intention
- Mr Bonnier’s intention in light of Aaqua’s financing
- The Aaqua App’s lack of functionality
- Reliance
- The Defendants’ case
- The Defendants’ submissions on Intention and the contractual provisions
- Estoppel
- Intention
- Summary of findings on liability
- Quantum
- Mitigation of loss
- Conclusions
![CL-2022-000367 - [2025] EWHC 2877 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png)