Palmer & Harvey McLane Ltd v Garrad & Anor

Palmer & Harvey McLane Ltd v Garrad & Anor

The Settlement Agreement was not a sham or illegal; it was valid and enforceable. The evidence overwhelmingly supports P&H's claim and refutes the Garrads' defences and counterclaims.

Parties
Claimant: Palmer & Harvey McLane Limited; Defendant: Clive Garrad; Defendant: Susan Garrad
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
judgment for claimant
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Settlement Agreements, Sham Agreements, Illegality, Counterclaims
Contract Commercial Enforceability of Settlement Agreements Sham Agreements Illegality Counterclaims

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palmer & Harvey McLane Limited

Claimant

Clive Garrad

Defendant

Susan Garrad

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Settlement Agreement was a sham and unenforceable
  2. 2 Whether the Settlement Agreement was illegal for tax-loss or valuation purposes
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to enforce the Settlement Agreement against the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Settlement Agreement was not a sham or illegal; it was valid and enforceable. The evidence overwhelmingly supports P&H's claim and refutes the Garrads' defences and counterclaims.

Court Disposition

judgment for claimant

Orders

  • Counterclaims dismissed
  • Defendants to pay £1,764,572.65 plus interest to claimant