Jordan v Thorner [2023] EWHC 840 (Ch) (18 April 2023)

Jordan v Thorner [2023] EWHC 840 (Ch) (18 April 2023)

The judge was wrong to conclude that nothing was due for contracting services where it was undisputed that services were provided at reasonable rates and corroborated by other evidence; a reasonable sum (£70,000 plus VAT) was awarded. The counterclaim for damages for breach of contract regarding farm assurance failed as no actual loss was suffered by the defendant. The judge's findings on labour charges were upheld as they were based on preferred evidence and not plainly wrong.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 840 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Michael Jordan; Defendant/respondent: David Thorner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment for claimant on contracting services; counterclaim dismissed; other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Contractual Entitlement to Payment, Evidentiary Requirements for Claims, Estoppel and Waiver, Counterclaim for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Contractual Entitlement to Payment Evidentiary Requirements for Claims Estoppel and Waiver Counterclaim 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Jordan

Claimant/appellant

David Thorner

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to payment for contracting services provided outside the written contract
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to payment for his own and others' labour under the contract
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to damages for breach of contract regarding farm assurance paperwork

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was wrong to conclude that nothing was due for contracting services where it was undisputed that services were provided at reasonable rates and corroborated by other evidence; a reasonable sum (£70,000 plus VAT) was awarded. The counterclaim for damages for breach of contract regarding farm assurance failed as no actual loss was suffered by the defendant. The judge's findings on labour charges were upheld as they were based on preferred evidence and not plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment for claimant on contracting services; counterclaim dismissed; other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for claimant in the sum of £70,000 plus VAT for contracting services
  • Counterclaim for £2,500 damages dismissed