Jani-King (Gb) Ltd. v Alan James Manchett [2011] EWHC 1659 (QB) (01 July 2011)

Jani-King (Gb) Ltd. v Alan James Manchett [2011] EWHC 1659 (QB) (01 July 2011)

The Defendant's case on escrow and fraudulent misrepresentation had no real prospect of success, given the clear and comprehensive terms of the signed franchise agreement, the entire agreement and exclusion clauses, and the lack of credible evidence supporting the Defendant's version of events. The Master's decision to grant summary judgment and refuse amendments was robust but justified. The alleged procedural irregularities and inadequacy of reasons did not amount to grounds for appeal.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1659
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jani-King (GB) Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Alan James Manchett; Third Party: Paul Haworth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (civil, Summary Judgment) / High Court, Post Summary Judgment, Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused. Summary judgment and orders below affirmed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Entire Agreement Clauses, Escrow Agreements, Contractual Interpretation, Exclusion of Liability for Fraud, Amendment of Pleadings
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Fraudulent Misrepresentation Entire Agreement Clauses Escrow Agreements Contractual Interpretation +2 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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jani-King (GB) Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Alan James Manchett

Defendant/applicant

Paul Haworth

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (civil, Summary Judgment) / High Court, Post Summary Judgment, Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in granting summary judgment to the Claimant for the franchise fee and refusing the Defendant's application to amend his Defence and Counterclaim.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's case on escrow or conditional contract had real prospects of success.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation had real prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's case on escrow and fraudulent misrepresentation had no real prospect of success, given the clear and comprehensive terms of the signed franchise agreement, the entire agreement and exclusion clauses, and the lack of credible evidence supporting the Defendant's version of events. The Master's decision to grant summary judgment and refuse amendments was robust but justified. The alleged procedural irregularities and inadequacy of reasons did not amount to grounds for appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused. Summary judgment and orders below affirmed.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed.
  • Summary judgment for the Claimant in the sum of £129,250 plus interest of £28,435 and costs stands.