Mercia Enterprises Ltd v Mistry [2020] EWHC 1597 (QB) (19 June 2020)

Mercia Enterprises Ltd v Mistry [2020] EWHC 1597 (QB) (19 June 2020)

The judge was entitled to find the first defendant personally liable for money had and received because she had sole control over the funds, failed to account for them, and did not provide a satisfactory explanation as to their destination. The fact that the account may have been a company account did not absolve her of personal liability given her total control and lack of disclosure.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1597 (QB)
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Mercia Enterprises Ltd; Appellant/defendant: Pratibha Mistry; Appellant/defendant: UPAL (Universal Property Agents Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Money Had and Received, Personal Liability of Company Directors, Corporate Veil, Breach of Contract, Equitable Tracing
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity Money Had and Received Personal Liability of Company Directors Corporate Veil Breach of Contract Equitable Tracing

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

Parties

Mercia Enterprises Ltd

Respondent/claimant

Pratibha Mistry

Appellant/defendant

UPAL (Universal Property Agents Limited)

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant (Pratibha Mistry) was personally liable for money had and received to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in attributing liability to the first defendant rather than the company (UPAL)
  3. 3 Whether the Santander bank account was a personal or company account and its relevance to liability

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find the first defendant personally liable for money had and received because she had sole control over the funds, failed to account for them, and did not provide a satisfactory explanation as to their destination. The fact that the account may have been a company account did not absolve her of personal liability given her total control and lack of disclosure.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment against the first defendant (Pratibha Mistry) in the sum of £12,735.44 is upheld
  • No order for retrial or further evidence admitted beyond specified Santander letters