Except as already stated1, mere silence or inaction, however morally reprehensible it may be2, neither constitutes, nor is equivalent or contributory to, misrepresentation.
In a case where a positive duty of disclosure exists by reason of the particular relationship of the parties, or the fact that the transaction is uberrimae fidei, the transaction may be voidable on the ground of non-disclosure even though the non-disclosure does not amount to misrepresentation3. It has been held previously that mere non-disclosure does not give a right to damages. However, it may now be that where there is a duty to disclose, non-disclosure is
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial.
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN
TAKE A FREE TRIAL
0330 161 1234