Nageh v David Game College Ltd & Anor

Nageh v David Game College Ltd & Anor

The defendants admitted in their pleadings that Mr. Game signed the April 2005 document and did not properly withdraw that admission or plead forgery. Therefore, they were not entitled to challenge its authenticity or Mr. Game's signature. The trial judge erred in finding the document was not authentic. The appeal is allowed and the case remitted for determination of the remaining issues on the basis that Mr. Game signed and is bound by the document.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Lamya Nageh; Defendant/respondent: David Game College Ltd; Defendant/respondent: David Game
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; case remitted to High Court for determination of outstanding issues.
Legal Topics
Authenticity of Documents, Pleadings and Amendments, Admissions in Pleadings, Forgery, Damages for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Civil Procedure Authenticity of Documents Pleadings and Amendments Admissions in Pleadings Forgery Damages for Breach of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lamya Nageh

Claimant/appellant

David Game College Ltd

Defendant/respondent

David Game

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the April 2005 document was not authentic and not signed by Mr. Game
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were entitled to challenge the authenticity of the April 2005 document in light of their pleadings and the refusal to amend
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing the defendants permission to amend their defence to allege forgery

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants admitted in their pleadings that Mr. Game signed the April 2005 document and did not properly withdraw that admission or plead forgery. Therefore, they were not entitled to challenge its authenticity or Mr. Game's signature. The trial judge erred in finding the document was not authentic. The appeal is allowed and the case remitted for determination of the remaining issues on the basis that Mr. Game signed and is bound by the document.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; case remitted to High Court for determination of outstanding issues.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed