White v Parton & Ors [2013] EWHC 2629 (Ch) (20 June 2013)

White v Parton & Ors [2013] EWHC 2629 (Ch) (20 June 2013)

No binding contract existed obliging defendants to procure allotment of shares to claimant, as essential terms regarding use of claimant's name were not agreed and claimant resiled from the plan. Claimant's performance (permitting use of his name) was a condition precedent to any share allotment. Defendants were at all times willing to perform; claimant was not. Claim dismissed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2629 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Marco Pierre White; Defendant: Andrew Parton; Defendant: Peter Featherman; Defendant: Yew Tree (Highclere) Limited; Defendant: Yew Tree (Highclere) Holdings Limited (Newco)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2013
Procedural Posture
High Court Chancery Division / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim does not arise; costs awarded to defendants on standard basis.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Shareholder Rights, Conditions Precedent, Assignment of Claims, Liquidation, Costs
Contract Law Company Law Formation of Contract Shareholder Rights Conditions Precedent Assignment of Claims Liquidation Costs

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marco Pierre White

Claimant

Andrew Parton

Defendant

Peter Featherman

Defendant

Yew Tree (Highclere) Limited

Defendant

Yew Tree (Highclere) Holdings Limited (Newco)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Chancery Division / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract existed obliging defendants to procure allotment of shares to claimant
  2. 2 Whether claimant was entitled to damages for breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether use of claimant's name was a condition precedent to share allotment

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract existed obliging defendants to procure allotment of shares to claimant, as essential terms regarding use of claimant's name were not agreed and claimant resiled from the plan. Claimant's performance (permitting use of his name) was a condition precedent to any share allotment. Defendants were at all times willing to perform; claimant was not. Claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim does not arise; costs awarded to defendants on standard basis.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No order on counterclaim