Ackerman v Ackerman & Ors [2011] EWHC 3428 (Ch) (21 December 2011)

Ackerman v Ackerman & Ors [2011] EWHC 3428 (Ch) (21 December 2011)

The court found that Mr Thornhill did not act with actual bias, collusion, or partiality, nor did he materially depart from his instructions under the Agreement. The process, though acrimonious and delayed, was not fundamentally unfair or deceitful. There was no repudiation of the Agreement, and the Report and steps taken under it remain valid and binding.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3428 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Joseph Ackerman; First Defendant: Naomi Ackerman; Second Defendant: Barry Ackerman; Third Defendant: Andrew Thornhill; Fourth Defendant: Bana One Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Determination, Bias and Impartiality, Family Business Demerger, Repudiation of Contract, Partition of Assets
Equity Trusts Company Law Contract Expert Determination Bias and Impartiality Family Business Demerger Repudiation of Contract +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Ackerman

Claimant

Naomi Ackerman

First Defendant

Barry Ackerman

Second Defendant

Andrew Thornhill

Third Defendant

Bana One Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Thornhill acted with actual bias, collusion, or partiality in the expert determination process
  2. 2 Whether Mr Thornhill materially departed from his instructions under the Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the Agreement was repudiated and at an end

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Thornhill did not act with actual bias, collusion, or partiality, nor did he materially depart from his instructions under the Agreement. The process, though acrimonious and delayed, was not fundamentally unfair or deceitful. There was no repudiation of the Agreement, and the Report and steps taken under it remain valid and binding.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed in its entirety.
  • The Report and steps taken under it are declared valid and binding.