Owen Pell Ltd v Bindi (London) Ltd
The expert answered the questions referred to him within the scope of the agreement; there was no evidence of actual or apparent bias, and no implied term requiring the decision to be free from gross error or breach of natural justice. The expert's determination is binding and enforceable even if wrong.
- Parties
- Claimant: Owen Pell Limited; Defendant: Bindi (London) Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 19 May 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Summary Judgment Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- summary judgment granted for claimant
- Legal Topics
- Expert Determination, Enforcement of Expert Decisions, Implied Terms, Bias, Natural Justice
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Owen Pell Limited
Claimant
Bindi (London) Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Is the expert determination binding and enforceable?
- 2 Should implied terms regarding natural justice, bias, or gross error be read into the agreement?
- 3 Did the expert act within his jurisdiction and answer the questions referred to him?
Ratio Decidendi
The expert answered the questions referred to him within the scope of the agreement; there was no evidence of actual or apparent bias, and no implied term requiring the decision to be free from gross error or breach of natural justice. The expert's determination is binding and enforceable even if wrong.
Court Disposition
summary judgment granted for claimant
Orders
- Defendant to pay claimant £53,487.65 plus VAT within seven days of the expert's decision.
- Defendant to pay 80% of the expert's fees.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment