Pistachios In the Park Ltd & Anor v Sharn Panesar Ltd [2022] EWHC 2088 (QB) (03 August 2022)

Pistachios In the Park Ltd & Anor v Sharn Panesar Ltd [2022] EWHC 2088 (QB) (03 August 2022)

The trial judge was entitled to find that the deceit was a significant factor in the claimants entering into the franchise agreement and that the appellants failed to prove that the agreement would have been entered into in any event or that the franchise was validly terminated. The judge correctly applied the law on causation and the burden of proof, and the appeal on all grounds fails.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2088
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Pistachios in the Park Limited; Appellant/defendant: Aysin Djemil; Respondent/claimant: Sharn Panesar Limited; Respondent/claimant: Sharn Panesar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment on Quantum and Causation Only
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deceit, Misrepresentation, Causation, Damages, Franchise Agreements, Termination of Contract
Tort Contract Deceit Misrepresentation Causation Damages Franchise Agreements Termination 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pistachios in the Park Limited

Appellant/defendant

Aysin Djemil

Appellant/defendant

Sharn Panesar Limited

Respondent/claimant

Sharn Panesar

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment on Quantum and Causation Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding causation between the deceit and the loss claimed
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred by relying on unpleaded allegations regarding the accuracy of financial figures
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in rejecting the argument that the franchise agreement was validly terminated, thereby limiting damages

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find that the deceit was a significant factor in the claimants entering into the franchise agreement and that the appellants failed to prove that the agreement would have been entered into in any event or that the franchise was validly terminated. The judge correctly applied the law on causation and the burden of proof, and the appeal on all grounds fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in full
  • Damages award of £217,825.94 inclusive of interest upheld