Hague Plant Ltd v Hague & Ors

Hague Plant Ltd v Hague & Ors

The court found, on the balance of probabilities and principally on the strength of authentic contemporaneous documents and expert evidence, that a cross-invoicing scheme did exist between Plant and Excavations, that unjustified payments were made pursuant to this arrangement, and that the scheme was known, consented to, and participated in by Plant, Dianne and David. The payments were intended to balance out with no substantial net loss to either company. Plant, having participated in and authorised the scheme, cannot now generally complain about the inaccuracy of such invoices, except possibly where Martin exceeded his mandate or where genuine charges were over- or under-valued. The...

Parties
Claimant: Hague Plant Limited; First Defendant: Martin Hartley Hague; Second Defendant: Jean Angela Hague; Third Defendant: MHH Contracting Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Company/commercial / Trial Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined in favour of the Defendants; cross-invoicing scheme found to exist and to have been participated in by Plant, Dianne and David. No final relief granted; further accounting or claims subject to limitation, laches, and public policy to be determined at main trial.
Legal Topics
Director's Fiduciary Duties, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Illegality Defence, Limitation and Laches, Cross Invoicing, Family Company Disputes
Company Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Director's Fiduciary Duties Dishonest Assistance Knowing Receipt Illegality Defence Limitation and Laches +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hague Plant Limited

Claimant

Martin Hartley Hague

First Defendant

Jean Angela Hague

Second Defendant

MHH Contracting Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Company/commercial / Trial Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unjustified payments were made pursuant to a cross-invoicing arrangement between Plant and Excavations
  2. 2 Whether such payments were calculated to balance out so as to create no substantial net loss to either company
  3. 3 Whether the practice was known by, consented to, authorised by and participated in by Plant, Dianne and David

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities and principally on the strength of authentic contemporaneous documents and expert evidence, that a cross-invoicing scheme did exist between Plant and Excavations, that unjustified payments were made pursuant to this arrangement, and that the scheme was known, consented to, and participated in by Plant, Dianne and David. The payments were intended to balance out with no substantial net loss to either company. Plant, having participated in and authorised the scheme, cannot now generally complain about the inaccuracy of such invoices, except possibly where Martin exceeded his mandate or where genuine charges were over- or under-valued. The...

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined in favour of the Defendants; cross-invoicing scheme found to exist and to have been participated in by Plant, Dianne and David. No final relief granted; further accounting or claims subject to limitation, laches, and public policy to be determined at main trial.

Orders

  • Declaration that unjustified payments were made pursuant to a cross-invoicing arrangement between Plant and Excavations.
  • Declaration that such payments were intended to balance out with no substantial net loss to either company.