Idjatulina v Finishing Touches (SPMU) Ltd [2022] EWHC 3337 (KB) (21 December 2022)

Idjatulina v Finishing Touches (SPMU) Ltd [2022] EWHC 3337 (KB) (21 December 2022)

The Recorder was entitled to find, on the evidence, that there was no express contractual term to provide facial rejuvenation training as part of the SMP course and no actionable misrepresentation regarding course content or necessity of purchasing a specific machine. The fresh evidence did not meet the criteria for admission on appeal and would not have influenced the outcome. The appeal court found no error of law or fact justifying interference with the Recorder's decision.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3337 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Irina Idjatulina; Defendant/respondent: Finishing Touches (SPMU) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Interpretation of Contractual Terms
Contract Law Tort Law Breach of Contract Misrepresentation Fresh Evidence on Appeal Interpretation of Contractual Terms

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irina Idjatulina

Claimant/appellant

Finishing Touches (SPMU) Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an express contractual term to provide facial rejuvenation training as part of the SMP course
  2. 2 Whether there was actionable misrepresentation regarding course content and necessity of purchasing a specific machine
  3. 3 Whether the Recorder erred in law or fact in dismissing the claims for breach of contract and misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder was entitled to find, on the evidence, that there was no express contractual term to provide facial rejuvenation training as part of the SMP course and no actionable misrepresentation regarding course content or necessity of purchasing a specific machine. The fresh evidence did not meet the criteria for admission on appeal and would not have influenced the outcome. The appeal court found no error of law or fact justifying interference with the Recorder's decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed