Home > Reading Room > Jordan and Dowie

Jordan and Dowie

Written by Michael Coyle on 15 June 2007

« Return to Reading Room

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 Agreement.

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should be rescinded.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.

Jordan said

"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."

If you'd like to know more about this article please send an email to Unknown quoting the article title and any questions you might have, alternatively call the office number on 02380 235 979 or send an enquiry through our contact form.

Want to speak
to someone?

Complete the form below and we’ll call you back free of charge.

Visual Captcha