Mehmet v Macerio-Lindstrom [2001] EWCA Civ 1124 (5 July 2001)

Mehmet v Macerio-Lindstrom [2001] EWCA Civ 1124 (5 July 2001)

The trial judge was entitled to prefer the claimant's evidence, find an express agreement for reasonable remuneration, and award quantum meruit and reimbursement for monies expended; no arguable error of law or fact was shown to justify permission to appeal.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1124
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ali Hayder Mehmet; Defendant/applicant: Anita Ingrid Macerio-Lindstrom
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Agency, Remuneration for Services, Counterclaim, Power of Attorney
Contract Law Property Law Quantum Meruit Agency Remuneration for Services Counterclaim Power of Attorney

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Hayder Mehmet

Claimant/respondent

Anita Ingrid Macerio-Lindstrom

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to remuneration for services provided to the defendant in managing her properties.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to reimbursement for monies expended on the defendant's behalf.
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the parties and quantifying the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to prefer the claimant's evidence, find an express agreement for reasonable remuneration, and award quantum meruit and reimbursement for monies expended; no arguable error of law or fact was shown to justify permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No order on the counterclaim