CL-2022-000367 - [2025] EWHC 2877 (Comm)

Fecha: 05-Nov-2025

Intention

Intention

122.

In actions for fraudulent misrepresentation, where the fraudulent misrepresentation is found to have been made, it will give rise to a rebuttable presumption of fact that the representor intended the representee to act in reliance on it: Rex Goose v Wilson Sandford & Co. (A Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 73.

123.

CVS said there is no credible explanation for the Defendants having lied, to rebut the presumption of fact as to intention, other than because they intended to induce CVS to enter the Three Agreements.

124.

CVS relied on additional evidence of the Defendants’ alleged intention to induce it to enter into the Three Agreements:

(1)

When making the Representations in February 2021, Mr Bonnier was privately warning his Aaqua team and Mr Hogarth to “keep a very tight lid on “additional dd and or information requests””from CVS and to discuss them with him first, before sending anything.

(2)

Following the execution of the Agreements, Mr Bonnier continued to tell Mr Smith and Mr Candy – well into 2022 – that the Apple and LVMH investments were close to finalisation, even though he knew that that was not the case.

125.

I accept that the Defendants made the Representations, knowing them to be false, in order to induce CVS to enter into the Three Agreements.