Ernest Richard Hemmings v Jerome Carl Mathias & Anor

The Settlement Agreement resulted in payment of the BANES Debt because the liquidators of Construction agreed that, in consideration of payment and mutual release of claims, the BANES Debt was wholly released and discharged.

Parties: Claimant: Ernest Richard Hemmings; First Defendant: Jerome Carl Mathias; Second Defendant: Temple Bright LLP
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 09 March 2023
Procedural Posture: Commercial / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome: Claim dismissed
Legal Topics: Share Purchase Agreement, Indemnity, Settlement Agreement, Repayment of Debt, Director's Duties

Contract Law Company Law Insolvency Law Share Purchase Agreement Indemnity Settlement Agreement Repayment of Debt Director's Duties

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7

Parties

Ernest Richard Hemmings

Claimant

Jerome Carl Mathias

First Defendant

Temple Bright LLP

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

1 Whether the settlement of claims between companies amounted to repayment of the BANES Debt under the SPA
2 Whether Mr Mathias procured repayment of the BANES Debt to Construction in accordance with clause 9.1 of the SPA
3 Whether Mr Hemmings was required to personally repay the BANES Debt as a result of non-payment by Communications

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

Mr Mathias procured repayment of the BANES Debt to Construction in accordance with clause 9.1 of the SPA.
Issue 2 does not arise.