Hague & Anor v Hague & Ors [2024] EWHC 1677 (Ch) (24 June 2024)

Hague & Anor v Hague & Ors [2024] EWHC 1677 (Ch) (24 June 2024)

The Petitioners have identified legitimate, non-fanciful concerns about the adequacy of the single joint expert's report, particularly regarding the data source and instructions. Given the procedural history, including disclosure defaults by the Respondents and the impracticality of instructing a further expert during the ongoing trial, it is just to defer the issue of excessive remuneration to the valuation phase, allowing the Petitioners the opportunity to instruct their own expert.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1677 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner: Mr Martin Hague; Petitioner: Mrs Jean Hague; First Respondent: Mr David Hague; Second Respondent: Ms Dianne Hague; Third Respondent: Hague Plant Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition / Liability Phase of Bifurcated Trial; Case Management Decision on Expert Evidence
Outcome
Petitioners' application to defer the excessive remuneration issue to the valuation phase is allowed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Expert Evidence, Case Management, Disclosure Defaults, Remuneration of Directors
Company Law Insolvency Unfair Prejudice Expert Evidence Case Management Disclosure Defaults Remuneration of Directors

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Martin Hague

Petitioner

Mrs Jean Hague

Petitioner

Mr David Hague

First Respondent

Ms Dianne Hague

Second Respondent

Hague Plant Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition / Liability Phase of Bifurcated Trial; Case Management Decision on Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the issue of excessive remuneration requiring expert evidence should be deferred to the valuation phase
  2. 2 Whether Petitioners should be permitted to instruct their own expert after a single joint expert's report

Ratio Decidendi

The Petitioners have identified legitimate, non-fanciful concerns about the adequacy of the single joint expert's report, particularly regarding the data source and instructions. Given the procedural history, including disclosure defaults by the Respondents and the impracticality of instructing a further expert during the ongoing trial, it is just to defer the issue of excessive remuneration to the valuation phase, allowing the Petitioners the opportunity to instruct their own expert.

Court Disposition

Petitioners' application to defer the excessive remuneration issue to the valuation phase is allowed.

Orders

  • The issue of excessive remuneration is removed from the scope of the current trial and will be dealt with in the later valuation phase.
  • No direction is given at this stage as to the admissibility of any further expert report; that will be determined after further steps are taken.