Inntrepreneur Pub Co (CPC) Ltd v Sweeney [2002] EWHC 1060 (Ch)
Whether a purported misrepresentation allows a lease term to be rescinded
Facts
The claimant, who was a landlord of various public houses, brought an action for an injunction against the defendant, the tenant of one of these establishments, for specific performance on the basis that the tenant was in breach of a tie for the supply of beer contained within the tenant’s lease. The defendant sought to defend the action under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 on the basis that the claimant had mispresented its intention to release the tie during negotiations for the lease. The defendant had also commenced a separate action against the claimant on the basis that the tie breached Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Issues
The issue in this context was whether a misrepresentation was a defence to an application for an injunction and whether it could be relied upon to rescind part of a lease.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that under the 1967 Act and at common law, the remedy for misrepresentation was damages only, and therefore it could not be raised as a defence to an application for an injunction. Whilst a misrepresentation did give the right to rescind a contract, a tenant could not retain the lease and simply rescind part of it. Given that there was significant similarity between the parties’ separate claims against one another, the court could offset the defendant’s potential damages under that claim against the damages sustained by the claimant in this judgment.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the decision in Inntrepreneur Pub Co (CPC) Ltd v Sweeney [2002] EWHC 1060 (Ch). The core legal principles discussed — that misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 does not provide a defence to an injunction, and that a party cannot rescind part of a contract while retaining the remainder — remain good law.
One point worth noting for students: the article refers to Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). Following the Lisbon Treaty (in force 1 December 2009), this provision was renumbered as Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Since the UK’s departure from the European Union, Article 101 TFEU no longer applies directly in domestic law; the equivalent domestic provision is now Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998, which mirrors Article 101 in substance. This does not affect the accuracy of the article’s discussion of the misrepresentation issues, but students should be aware that the EU competition law dimension of the case would today be analysed differently in a domestic context.
