De Molestina v Ponton [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 587
Contract – Misrepresentation – Fraud – Property – Ownership – Shares – Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Facts
This case concerned ownership of property and the estate of a deceased wealthy businessman. This was a dispute between members of the family, where the complainants believed that representations made by one of the defendants was misleading and made to deceive, so that he could have ownership for himself.
Issues
The complainants in this dispute argued for partial rescission of the agreement they had made with the defendant regarding the estate, as they believed that statements were made fraudulently. On the other hand, the defendants argued that the agreement the complainants wished to rescind could not be separated and were pieces of larger and complete transaction. In addition, the defendants argued that partial rescission of a contract was not a principle that was allowed under English law and could not be used as a remedy. Thus, the issue in this case was whether it was possible to rescind part of a contract under English law and if it could be a remedy if the complainants could prove their case regarding misrepresentation.
Decision/Outcome
It was held in this case that it was not possible under English law to rescind part of an agreement or contract. The court states that looking at previous case law and its development, a contract could not be partially agreed to and the other side disregarded. Only a whole and complete contract can be rescinded, not just certain elements, even if misrepresented.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in De Molestina v Ponton [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 587, in which Colman J held that partial rescission of a contract is not available as a remedy under English law. The principle that rescission operates on a contract as a whole, and cannot be used to set aside only discrete parts of an agreement, remains good law.
However, readers should be aware that this area has attracted subsequent judicial attention. In Halpern v Halpern [2007] EWCA Civ 291, the Court of Appeal acknowledged the rule against partial rescission while also raising questions about its scope in certain circumstances. More significantly, in Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP [2017] UKSC 32 and related commentary, courts have continued to grapple with the boundaries of rescission as an equitable remedy, though the core rule confirmed in De Molestina has not been overturned. Students should also note that the Misrepresentation Act 1967 remains the primary statutory framework governing misrepresentation and the availability of remedies in English law, and it has not been materially amended in ways that affect the principles discussed in this case. The article is therefore broadly accurate but should be read alongside these later developments.
