Terry Gregory (Metal Fabrications) Ltd v Wendy Golledge & Ors

Terry Gregory (Metal Fabrications) Ltd v Wendy Golledge & Ors

The inclusion of 'Additional Charges' by JJP in 2009 invoices did not constitute overcharging or dishonesty. The charges were reasonable in the contractual context, there was no evidence of excessive or unjustifiable sums, and Mr Golledge genuinely believed he was entitled to levy such charges. The trial judge applied the correct legal test for dishonesty and his evaluative findings cannot be disturbed on appeal.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud, Dishonesty, Course of Dealing, Contractual Terms, Unfair Prejudice, Family Company Disputes
Contract Law Civil Procedure Company Law Fraud Dishonesty Course of Dealing Contractual Terms 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether JJP, through Mr Golledge, dishonestly overcharged the Company in 2009 invoices
  2. 2 Whether the inclusion of 'Additional Charges' for 'hard' or 'very hard' work was contractually permitted
  3. 3 Whether Mr Golledge's conduct amounted to dishonesty under the Ivey v Genting Casinos test

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of 'Additional Charges' by JJP in 2009 invoices did not constitute overcharging or dishonesty. The charges were reasonable in the contractual context, there was no evidence of excessive or unjustifiable sums, and Mr Golledge genuinely believed he was entitled to levy such charges. The trial judge applied the correct legal test for dishonesty and his evaluative findings cannot be disturbed on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment of ICC Judge Prentis upheld; no finding of dishonesty or overcharging against Mr Golledge.