STUDENT REFERENCE NUMBER: 143176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. HC 20108 50

QUEENS BENCH DEVISION

BETWEEN:

(1) ELLA DEAN

(2) JAMES DEAN
CLAIMANTS

and

EDGAR ALED WIMPOLE

DEFENDANT

___________________________________

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

__________________________________

DEFENCE

1. Paragraph 1 and 2 of the Particulars of claim are admitted. On the 23 rd September

2008 the claimants visited Sandbourne a village in Somerset and saw the premises
known as Old Farm Cottages and on the same day the claimants were told by a
friend at a dinner party that the Defendant intended to sell the property.

2. As to Paragraph 3 :
(a) Save that the defendant admits contacting the second Claimant by telephone
with regard to sale of the premises on the 24th September 2008.

(b) It is denied that in the course of that conversation that the defendant made any
representations at all or in particular to the gross and net profits for year ending
2007 that those profits were £51,000 and £47,000 respectively. During the
conversation the Defendant merely mentioned that the gross profits for 2007
had been about £50,000 by using the word “about” the defendant did not give a
definite figure.

3. As to paragraph 4 It is admitted that at the defendants invitation the claimants went to

view the premises mentioned in paragraph1 of this Defence and during the course of
that visit the Defendant showed the Claimants profit and loss accounts for years
ending 31st September 2006 and 31st December 2007 which showed the figures for
gross and net profit for the year ending 2007,save that paragraph 2(b) of this defence
is repeated ,it is denied that the figures mentioned by the Defendant in the discussion
of 24th September 2008 were the same as those in the accounts. When showing the
accounts to the Claimants the Defendant made no reference to the figures given in
oral discussions.
4. The Defendant denies paragraph 5 of the particulars of claim. The defendant only
mentioned that bookings for 2009 were doing well he made no mention that they
were fully booked. Paragraph 2(b) of this defence is repeated.

5. Paragraph 6 is denied, specifically:

(a) The Defendant hired the services of a competent accountant and at the
time of showing the accounts referred to in paragraph 3 to the Claimants,
the Defendant honestly believed that the accounts was correctly prepared.
(b) The Claimants relied on their own judgement in purchasing the premises, it was
their impression of the surrounding areas and the potential of the property that
induced them into the contract. Paragraph 2(b) is repeated.

6. It is denied that the Defendants were in breach of contract or collateral warranties as

alleged or at all.

7. As to paragraph 8(2) paragraph 5 of this defence is repeated and the Defendant puts
the Claimant to proof on the figures for gross and net profit for 2007.

8. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny and require the claimants to prove the
contents of paragraphs 9 and 10.

9. As to Paragraph 11 the Defendant is unable to admit or deny and requires the

Claimants to prove that they have suffered the alleged or any loss and/or damage. It
is further denied that any loss and/or damage that the claimants are able to prove
was caused by the Defendant, as alleged or at all. Their has been news reports
specifically mentioning the Claimants holiday lets by name alleging that the smell
emitting from the pig farm next door has led to putting off potential customers. Please
see attached a copy of newspaper cutting dated 2.2.09.

10. Further or alternatively, if contrary to this defence the defendant is found liable, he
will seek to extinguish or reduce the Claimants claim by setting off the sums below.

11. As to paragraph 12 it is denied that interest are due.

COUNTERCLAIM

12. The defendant repeats paragraphs 1 to 9 of the Defence above.

13. As a result of an agreement made between the Defendant and the Claimant on 26 th
October 2009 with regard to the acceptance of a “vintage Ferrari” motor car as part
payment of the purchase price of Old Farm Cottages. The transfer of ownership of
the Car to the Claimant was intended by the parties to represent £50,000 of the
 purchase price of Old farm Cottages. It was on the basis of this agreement as to the
transfer of ownership, that the Defendant accepted the claimant’s offer.
14. The Claimants representations as to the type and value of the car were completely
false and the car was worth only around £10,000 when the ownership was
transferred to the Defendant and not £60,000 as represented.

15. By reason of the matters set out above the Claimants owes the Defendant the
following sum:
(I) Amount discounted due to representation £60,000

16. The Defendants further claims interest on such amount as they may be awarded
under this Counter Claim at a rate of 8% pursuant to Section 35A of Supreme Court
Act 1981.

AND the Defendant counterclaim:

(1) The sum of £60,000.

(2) Interest under section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to be assessed.

A BARRISTA
13/02/2010

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
STUDENT REFERENCE NUMBER: 143176

FRAUD

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff - he who asserts fraud must prove it. To prove fraud
the person asserting must prove that:-

 The defendant failed to disclose one or more material facts about the subject matter
of the claim;

 The defendant had actual knowledge of the fact(s);

 The defendant’s failure to disclose the fact(s) caused the plaintiff to have a false
impression;

 When the defendant failed to disclose the fact(s), the defendant knew the failure
would create a false impression;

 When defendant failed to disclose the fact(s), defendant intended that plaintiff rely on
the resulting false impression;

 The plaintiff relied on the false impression; and

 The plaintiff was damaged as a result of the reliance upon the false impression

My Instructions have alleged fraud however, before a successful case be launched in this
regard their must exist credible evidence that will establish such a case, as it stands there is
no evidence in my instructions showing that the said vehicle is not what the claimants
purport it to be. In this regard I would advise those instructing me to obtain an expert report
and more tangible evidence before such a claim can be brought.

It should be noted that the limitation period for fraud does not begin to run until the claimant
discovers the fraud LA 1980, s32 (1).

A BARRISTA
bpp Law Chambers
13/02/2010