Jones v Hagger [2024] EWHC 2502 (KB) (21 May 2024)

Jones v Hagger [2024] EWHC 2502 (KB) (21 May 2024)

The judge below did not err in relying on the single joint expert's report or in the calculation of the sum owed to Mr Jones; the only minor error was using the first rather than the revised report, which was not material or adverse to the appellant. The appeal was limited to arithmetic or typographical error, and none was found. The costs order was within the judge's discretion and not open to challenge on these facts.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2502 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Russell Jones; Defendant/respondent: Dawn Hagger
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment and Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Taking of Partnership Accounts, Costs on Appeal, Expert Evidence, Standard of Proof
Partnership Law Civil Procedure Taking of Partnership Accounts Costs on Appeal Expert Evidence Standard of Proof

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Russell Jones

Claimant/appellant

Dawn Hagger

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in assessing the total net loss of the business at £48,106.46 rather than £50,106.46
  2. 2 Whether the judge was right to find the appellant's share of such net loss amounted to £10,668.91

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below did not err in relying on the single joint expert's report or in the calculation of the sum owed to Mr Jones; the only minor error was using the first rather than the revised report, which was not material or adverse to the appellant. The appeal was limited to arithmetic or typographical error, and none was found. The costs order was within the judge's discretion and not open to challenge on these facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application denied
  • Costs appeals dismissed; original costs order stands