Sophie Newman
Sophie is an associate in the commercial dispute resolution team at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP. She assists with a broad range of commercial disputes, acting for both private individuals and corporate clients. Her practice covers a diverse range of areas, including advising on commercial contract, shareholder and banking disputes, regulatory compliance, debt recovery and professional negligence claims.
Sophie has been involved in UK and cross-border litigation and arbitration, has experience of taking claims through the County Court and the High Court, and was part of the team that acted for the Consumers’ Association in the seminal Supreme Court case of Phillip v Barclays. She is also recognised by The Legal 500 as a key lawyer in PMC’s professional negligence team.
Sophie graduated from the University of Cambridge with a BA in Human, Social and Political Sciences in 2016, following which she worked as a major gifts fundraiser for both Cambridge and Oxford Universities. Between 2019 and 2021 she undertook the GDL and LPC, achieving a distinction in both.
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 2023
Experience
- University of Cambridge (non-legal) (2016 - 2018)
- University of Oxford (non-legal) (2018 - 2021)
Qualifications
- GDL (Distinction) (2020)
- LPC (Distinction) (2021)
Education
- University of Cambridge (BA, MA) (2013 - 2016)
- BPP Law School (GDL) (2019 – 2020)
- BPP Law School (LPC) (2020 - 2021)
1 Contributions by Sophie Newman
PRACTICE NOTES
Misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967: falsity, fraudulent/negligent/innocent distinctions, remedies, burdens of proof and pleading strategy (England and Wales)
A misrepresentation claim requires that the statement in question must have been untrue. This is the ‘falsity’ element. Once falsity is established, the subsequent enquiry is whether that untrue statement was made fraudulently or innocently, and if it was made innocently, there is then a further enquiry, namely whether any negligence was involved in the innocent making of that untrue statement. This Practice Note examines the falsity requirement in a misrepresentation claim and explains the distinctions and reasons for pleading fraudulent misrepresentation rather than negligent or innocent misrepresentation, with reference to the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (MA 1967). It also sets out a number of pointers for assessing a misrepresentation claim.
For general guidance on misrepresentation claims, including what they are (and are not) and the key constituent elements for bringing a claim for actionable misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation—what it is and similar claims. For related Practice Notes on remedies of damages and rescission in misrepresentation claims, see Practice Notes:
Misrepresentation—damages as a remedy
Misrepresentation—rescission as a remedy
Representation must have been false
The representation relied upon must have been untrue...
Dispute Resolution
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
