Jordan and Dowie
Submit Articles Back to Articles
Simon Jordan the owner of Crystal Palace yesterday claimed victory in his
dispute with Iain Dowie Northern Ireland legend and all round looker.
The main allegation was that Dowie made oral representations to Jordan which
were false and which were intended to and did induce Jordan to sign a Compromise
The issues were:
a) Whether or not the [Club] entered into the Compromise Agreement dated 22nd
May 2006 on the basis of alleged fraudulent representations by Mr Dowie
b) whether, if the answer to issue (a) is "yes", the Compromise Agreement
dated 22nd May 2006 should be rescinded.
Under cross examination Mr McParland Counsel for Dowie asked "At the end of
the day, Mr Jordan, you are a commercial man, you would like to get some money
from Mr Dowie if you think you could?
“MR JORDAN I am a commercial man who was prepared to waive £1m worth of
compensation on the basis of goodwill and human interest, who was lied to and
duped and I don't take very kindly to it".
Later Mr McParland put Dowie’s to Jordan in this way:
" Mr Jordan, you have not been a victim of any fraudulent misrepresentation,
…What you have been the victim of is your own Machiavellian attempts to get
money out of Charlton Athletic, and the victim of your own persistent abuse of
Iain Dowie for your own purposes?"
The relevant clause was
“If [Dowie] should leave the company and gain employment at any Football
League Club or Premiership Football Club before 30 June 2008, the [the Club]
will receive a compensation payment of £1,000,000 (one million pounds) on the
day employment commences with the new club".
The general principle (so far as material) is that where a person makes a
false representation, knowing it to be untrue, and intends that the other should
act in reliance on it, then in so far as the person does act in reliance on it,
and suffers loss, the other is liable for that loss. The general principle of
rescission is that where a person has been induced to enter into a contract as a
result of a fraudulent misrepresentation by the other contracting party (the
defendant), the other may rescind the contract, or claim damages, or both.
Rescission is the legal term for the retrospective avoidance of a contract. It
takes effect as from the time when the contract was made, so that the contract
is deemed not to have been made at all.
Mr Jordan was not entitled to have the agreement rescinded but it was found
that Dowie had made fraudulent misrepresentations.
"I took a man to the high court for fraudulent misrepresentation, and he's
been found guilty," he told the club's website. "The claims and costs will be
decided at a later date."
About the Author
Lawdit Solicitors offer services and
advice for litigation, commercial contracts, Intellectual Property and IT legal
agreements. We are experts in commercial law with a heavy emphasis on
Intellectual Property, Internet and e-commerce law. Lawdit is a member of the
International Trademark Association, the Solicitors' Association of Higher Court
Advocates and we are the appointed Solicitors to the largest webdesign
association in the world, the United Kingdom Website Designers Association.
Follow us @Scopulus_News
Article Published/Sorted/Amended on Scopulus 2007-06-15 20:55:47 in Legal Articles