- Failure to call witnesses, reliance upon fraudulent misrepresentations and penalty interest (Ahuja Investments Ltd v Victorygame Ltd and Pandher)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Failure to call witnesses and the impact of adverse inferences
- Penalty interest
- Case details
Commercial analysis: This case is useful reading for practitioners on three grounds. Firstly, the judgment provides a useful summary of the court’s approach to drawing inferences and making factual findings in the absence of key witnesses. Secondly, the judgment is a rare example of a defendant successfully discharging the burden of proving non-reliance upon an admittedly incorrect representation. Thirdly, in his judgment His Honour Judge Hodge QC disallowed a claim for contractual interest on the basis that it was an unenforceable penalty, and may be deployed in future as a touchstone example for inappropriate levels of interest. Written by Ryan Turner, barrister at Lamb Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial