Facts: A company director was accused of fraudulent misrepresentation. He could not escape liability on the basis that the fraud was not committed on behalf of himself personally but on behalf of his company.
Held: Fault was defined as “negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission”. It was argued that the conduct by the claimant could not amount to “fault” within the 1945 Act unless it gave rise to a common law defence of contributory negligence. There was no common law defence of contributory negligence in the case of fraudulent misrepresentation so no apportionment could be made under the 1945 Act. The D’s liability arose from having committed fraud, not by virtue of his position as a director.