Michael Jordan v David Thorner

Michael Jordan v David Thorner

The appellate court held that, although the claimant's handwritten records were unreliable, there was sufficient corroborative evidence that substantial contracting services were provided and accepted at reasonable rates. The trial judge erred in awarding nothing for these services. The court awarded the claimant £70,000 plus VAT for contracting services. The counterclaim for damages for breach of contract regarding farm assurance paperwork failed as no actual loss was proved. The remainder of the trial judge's findings were upheld.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Michael Jordan; Defendant/respondent: David Thorner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Trial Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit, Evidence, Counterclaim, Estoppel, Waiver
Contract Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Quantum Meruit Evidence Counterclaim Estoppel Waiver

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Jordan

Claimant/appellant

David Thorner

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to payment for contracting services provided outside the written contract
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's handwritten records (Sheets) are reliable evidence of work done and sums due
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is estopped or has waived the right to require documentary evidence for payment

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court held that, although the claimant's handwritten records were unreliable, there was sufficient corroborative evidence that substantial contracting services were provided and accepted at reasonable rates. The trial judge erred in awarding nothing for these services. The court awarded the claimant £70,000 plus VAT for contracting services. The counterclaim for damages for breach of contract regarding farm assurance paperwork failed as no actual loss was proved. The remainder of the trial judge's findings were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant in the sum of £70,000 plus VAT for contracting services
  • Counterclaim for £2,500 for breach of contract regarding farm assurance paperwork set aside