![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Plymouth_tram_at_Theatre_for_Peverell_cropped.jpg/640px-Plymouth_tram_at_Theatre_for_Peverell_cropped.jpg&w=640&q=50)
Derry v Peek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1 is a case on English contract law, fraudulent misstatement, and the tort of deceit.
Quick Facts Derry v Peek, Court ...
Derry v Peek | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | House of Lords |
Full case name | WILLIAM DERRY, J. C. WAKEFIELD, M. M. MOORE, J. PETHICK, AND S. J. WILDE v SIR HENRY WILLIAM PEEK, BARONET RESPONDENT |
Decided | 1 July 1889 |
Citation | (1889) LR 14 App Cas 337, [1889] UKHL 1 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Lord Halsbury L.C., Lord Watson, Lord Bramwell, Lord FitzGerald, and Lord Herschell |
Keywords | |
Misrepresentation, fraud |
Close
Derry v Peek established a 3-part test for fraudulent misrepresentation,[1] whereby the defendant is fraudulent if he:
- (i) knows the statement to be false,[2] or
- (ii) does not believe in the statement,[3] or
- (iii) is reckless as to its truth.
The House of Lords determined that, when issuing a prospectus, a company has as no general duty to use "care and skill" in to avoid making misstatements. This point is no longer good law in cases where economic loss flows from non-fraudulent misstatements.[4]
Within company law, this case has been qualified by statute,[clarification needed] codified today in the Companies Act 2006, which now recognises the fundamental importance of full disclosure in securities markets, to avoid financial crises.[citation needed]