A settlement should draw a line under a property dispute. Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Imber [2026] EWHC 2720 (KB) is a warning for parties to litigation. Leaving an earlier statement uncorrected can unravel a settlement and trigger repayment consequences.
What happened?
Mrs Imber’s home in Woodford Green suffered sewage flooding in 2006 and 2007. Her claim against Thames Water settled in 2013 for £500,000. Following another flood in 2014, she pursued a further claim for uninsured losses, which Thames Water disputed.
An expert valued the property at £817,000 without its flooding history, but considered there was unlikely to be a willing buyer given that history. Mrs Imber’s July 2023 mediation statement described her as “trapped” in an “unsaleable” property. She claimed its entire £817,000 value as diminution in market value, alongside approximately £144,000 in other losses.
The July 2023 mediation didn't resolve the dispute, and negotiations continued. Meanwhile, Mrs Imber sold the property for £780,000, completing on 3 August 2023. She didn't tell Thames Water. On 19 August she accepted £180,000 plus £45,000 costs in settlement. A settlement deed followed on 6 September, and Thames Water paid Mrs Imber £225,000.
After discovering the 3 August 2023 sale of the property by Mrs Imber, Thames Water sought to unwind the settlement due to her fraudulent misrepresentation and recover its money paid in settlement.
What did the court decide?
The High Court granted Thames Water summary judgment, without a full trial. The settlement was rescinded and Mrs Imber ordered to repay the £225,000 received. Any additional damages sought by Thames Water would require assessment, which didn't happen at the summary judgment hearing.
The court decided that the term “unsaleable” might express an opinion, but it also implied facts on which Thames Water relied. The term implied that the property hadn't been sold and there was no prospect of a sale. Those continuing representations became unequivocally false on completion. Mrs Imber had a duty to correct them before settling. The timeline of relevant events was as follows.
Thames Water’s own view that the property was saleable didn't defeat its claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. The question the court had to resolve was whether the representation materially influenced Thames Water’s decision to settle, not whether it believed the representation. An actual sale fundamentally changed the basis of the claim. The court could not imagine Thames Water agreeing the same deal had it known of the sale.
Even taking Mrs Imber’s account at its highest, the court found no realistic prospect of resisting a finding of dishonesty. Knowing the property had sold, she continued to pursue a claim premised on the fact the property was unsaleable. Ordinary, decent people would regard that as dishonest. Her alleged earlier disclosure of an accepted offer did not assist. A possible sale and a completed sale were materially different.
Practical lessons for real estate businesses
The decision concerns a dishonest failure to correct representations made previously in settlement discussions It doesn't establish a rule that every omission or change of circumstances is or will be deemed to be fraudulent. The decision however makes clear that when dealing with disputes:
Before accepting settlement terms, revisit the evidence and loss schedules to see if the statements remain correct or if the position has changed and, in turn, the settlement parameters.
Ensure the professional adviser teams are connected and share relevant developments promptly.
If the situation does change, you should correct the position clearly and in good time.
A deal negotiated on yesterday’s facts (particularly where the facts have changed materially since) may offer far less finality than expected, and expose risk.
Our team of legal built environment experts are here to support you. Contact one of our lawyers today.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.