It holds that there is a duty to disclose material changes in circumstances that were represented to be true in negotiations.

At trial, the judge held that because the contract was not made uberrimae fidei (in ultimate good faith).

He referred to Fry J in Davies v London Provincial Marine Insurance[1] that there is no duty to disclose, even when someone believes facts to be operating on another’s mind.

He noted that a ‘representation made as a matter of inducement to enter a contract is to be treated as a continuing representation.’ Romer LJ stated, I agree.

This affirms a general principle that any change to a fundamental reason for contracting (supervening falsification) must be communicated, where it is known to one party.