Terry Gregory (Metal Fabrications) Ltd v Wendy Golledge & Ors [2020] EWHC 1245 (Ch) (22 May 2020)

Terry Gregory (Metal Fabrications) Ltd v Wendy Golledge & Ors [2020] EWHC 1245 (Ch) (22 May 2020)

The inclusion of 'Additional Charges' for 'hard' or 'very hard' work in JJP's invoices did not constitute overcharging or fraud, as the charges were reasonable in the contractual context, reflected the established course of dealing, and were not dishonest under the objective legal standard; the trial judge's findings on fact and dishonesty were not open to challenge on appeal.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1245 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Terry Gregory (Metal Fabrications) Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Wendy Golledge; Respondent/defendant: Jeff Golledge; Respondent/defendant: JJ Paulman Contracts Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud, Dishonesty, Contractual Terms, Course of Dealing, Unfair Prejudice, Family Business Disputes
Commercial Law Contract Law Company Law Fraud Dishonesty Contractual Terms Course of Dealing Unfair Prejudice +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Gregory (Metal Fabrications) Ltd

Appellant/claimant

Wendy Golledge

Respondent/defendant

Jeff Golledge

Respondent/defendant

JJ Paulman Contracts Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'Additional Charges' in invoices constituted overcharging and/or fraud
  2. 2 Whether the inclusion of 'Additional Charges' was dishonest under the legal test for dishonesty

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of 'Additional Charges' for 'hard' or 'very hard' work in JJP's invoices did not constitute overcharging or fraud, as the charges were reasonable in the contractual context, reflected the established course of dealing, and were not dishonest under the objective legal standard; the trial judge's findings on fact and dishonesty were not open to challenge on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Both grounds of appeal rejected
  • No finding of dishonesty or fraud against Mr Golledge