The Court of Appeal has considered the mental element required for a successful claim in deceit, or fraudulent misrepresentation, finding that there is no separate or freestanding requirement of an “intention to deceive”: Eco 3 Capital and others v Ludsin Overseas Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 413.

Having reviewed the case law, the court confirmed that the tort of deceit contains four ingredients, namely:

  1. The defendant makes a false representation to the claimant.
  2. The defendant knows that the representation is false, alternatively is reckless as to whether it is true or false.
  3. The defendant intends that the claimant should act in reliance on it.
  4. The claimant does act in reliance on it and in consequence suffers loss.

The phrase “intention to deceive” is merely another way of describing the mental element of the tort, comprised of ingredients 2 and 3 above. On the judge’s findings of fact in this case all four ingredients had been established. There was no further requirement for the judge to find that there had been an intention to deceive.