Ackerman v Ackerman & Ors

Ackerman v Ackerman & Ors

Permission to appeal was granted on the issue of whether the expert's report was binding given the procedural breach, as it was arguable that failure to follow the agreed procedure invalidated the report. Permission was refused on other grounds as there was no real prospect of success. The stay of execution on interim payments was continued due to lack of evidence of Joseph's means and risk of stifling the appeal. The application for security for costs was adjourned generally due to insufficient evidence of Joseph's ability to provide security.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Joseph Ackerman; Defendant/respondent: Naomi Ackerman; Defendant/respondent: Barry Ackerman; Defendant/respondent: Andrew Thornhill; Defendant/respondent: Bana One Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Related Applications
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part; stay of execution continued; application for security for costs adjourned.
Legal Topics
Expert Determination, Procedural Fairness, Security for Costs, Stay of Execution, Interpretation of Contractual Clauses
Contract Law Civil Procedure Expert Determination Procedural Fairness Security for Costs Stay of Execution Interpretation of Contractual Clauses

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Ackerman

Claimant/appellant

Naomi Ackerman

Defendant/respondent

Barry Ackerman

Defendant/respondent

Andrew Thornhill

Defendant/respondent

Bana One Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure by an expert to follow agreed procedure invalidates the report
  2. 2 Whether unfair behaviour by the expert amounts to repudiation of the agreement
  3. 3 Proper construction of the expert's powers under the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was granted on the issue of whether the expert's report was binding given the procedural breach, as it was arguable that failure to follow the agreed procedure invalidated the report. Permission was refused on other grounds as there was no real prospect of success. The stay of execution on interim payments was continued due to lack of evidence of Joseph's means and risk of stifling the appeal. The application for security for costs was adjourned generally due to insufficient evidence of Joseph's ability to provide security.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part; stay of execution continued; application for security for costs adjourned.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal limited to the issue of whether the Report is binding on Joseph.
  • Stay of execution on interim payments continued until determination of the appeal or further order.