Pistachios In the Park Ltd & Anor v Sharn Panesar Ltd [2022] EWHC 2088 (QB) (03 August 2022)

Pistachios In the Park Ltd & Anor v Sharn Panesar Ltd [2022] EWHC 2088 (QB) (03 August 2022)

The judge was entitled to find that the deceit was a significant factor in causing the loss, the findings were based on the business plan not the prospectus, and the appellants failed to prove valid termination of the franchise agreement; thus, the appeal fails on all grounds.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2088 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Pistachios in the Park Limited; Appellant/defendant: Aysin Djemil; Respondent/claimant: Sharn Panesar Limited; Respondent/claimant: Sharn Panesar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deceit, Misrepresentation, Causation, Damages, Franchise Agreements, Termination, Rescission
Tort Contract Commercial Deceit Misrepresentation Causation Damages Franchise Agreements +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pistachios in the Park Limited

Appellant/defendant

Aysin Djemil

Appellant/defendant

Sharn Panesar Limited

Respondent/claimant

Sharn Panesar

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in finding causation between deceit and loss
  2. 2 Whether the judge based his decision on unpleaded allegations regarding inaccurate figures
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in rejecting the argument of valid termination of the franchise agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that the deceit was a significant factor in causing the loss, the findings were based on the business plan not the prospectus, and the appellants failed to prove valid termination of the franchise agreement; thus, the appeal fails on all grounds.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Damages inclusive of interest in the sum of £217,825.94 upheld