Lauralu UK Ltd v Bodypower Sports Ltd (t/a The Fitness Superstore) [2026] EWHC 47 (Ch) (13 January 2026)

Lauralu UK Ltd v Bodypower Sports Ltd (t/a The Fitness Superstore) [2026] EWHC 47 (Ch) (13 January 2026)

The Recorder erred in law by making inferences favourable to the Respondent to fill gaps in the evidence regarding the quarantining process and extent of damage to stock, where no good reason was given for the absence of direct evidence. The finding that the majority of quarantined stock was significantly damaged was perverse and contrary to the agreed expert evidence. The deduction for storage/handling charges was not properly supported by the evidence. The damages award must be set aside and reconsidered.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 47 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant / Appellant: Lauralu UK Limited; Defendant / Respondent: Bodypower Sports Limited (T/as The Fitness Superstore)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from County Court) / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Cross-appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Damages Assessment, Mitigation of Loss, Evidential Inferences, Expert Evidence, Rescission of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Damages Assessment Mitigation of Loss Evidential Inferences Expert Evidence Rescission 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lauralu UK Limited

Claimant / Appellant

Bodypower Sports Limited (T/as The Fitness Superstore)

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from County Court) / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in drawing inferences favourable to the Respondent in the absence of direct evidence on the quarantining process and criteria for damaged stock.
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder's findings on the extent of damage to stock and mitigation of loss were perverse or unsupported by evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the deduction of £250,000 for storage/handling charges was justified on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder erred in law by making inferences favourable to the Respondent to fill gaps in the evidence regarding the quarantining process and extent of damage to stock, where no good reason was given for the absence of direct evidence. The finding that the majority of quarantined stock was significantly damaged was perverse and contrary to the agreed expert evidence. The deduction for storage/handling charges was not properly supported by the evidence. The damages award must be set aside and reconsidered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Cross-appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The Recorder's findings on the extent of damage to stock and quantum of damages are set aside.
  • The deduction of £250,000 for storage/handling is set aside.