A former model who lost a London High Court “deceit” fight with a businessman who launched the Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket competition has begun an appeal.
Venture capitalist Gurpreet Gill Maag and Quantum Care – a company she runs – had sued Lalit Modi and made allegations of “deceit”.
Mrs Maag, who invested about £750,000 in a cancer care company called Ion Care, which Mr Modi was behind, asked a judge to award her damages.
She said she had invested after Mr Modi “represented” to her that the Duke of York was among several high-profile people who were “patrons” of Ion Care.
Mr Modi disputed her allegations.
Judge Murray Rosen, who heard evidence at a High Court trial in 2022, declined to find that Mr Modi had made “actionable misrepresentations”.
Lawyers representing Mrs Maag on Wednesday asked Court of Appeal judges Lord Justice Newey, Lord Justice Singh and Lord Justice Nugee to overturn decisions made by Judge Rosen and order a re-trial.
The appeal hearing is due to end later this week.
Judge Rosen had said, in a written ruling in March 2022, that Quantum had taken on a “heavy burden in seeking to establish a difficult case in deceit” and its evidence was “manifestly not sound enough for that task”.
The judge said an investment of one million US dollars (£760,000) was subject to Mr Modi’s “contractual promise of repayment”.
He said there would be judgment against Mr Modi for the balance of 800,000 dollars (£610,000) owing.
The judge had said: “I decline to find that Mr Modi made actionable misrepresentations as alleged.”
He ruled that Quantum’s deceit claim against Mr Modi fell to be dismissed.
The judge went on: “Even if that were wrong, apart from its one million US dollar investment which is subject to Mr Modi’s contractual promise of repayment, I am not persuaded that it suffered any recoverable loss.
“There will be judgment for Quantum against Mr Modi for the balance of 800,000 US dollars owing under his contract, and interest. Quantum’s claims otherwise fail.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article