Deir v Al Athel & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 73 (12 January 2012)

Deir v Al Athel & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 73 (12 January 2012)

The Court of Appeal held that the issue of 'active involvement' was properly raised in the pleadings and evidence, and the trial judge was entitled to make findings on that basis. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the judge's approach or application of the test. The judge's findings regarding entitlement to director's fees for the relevant companies were findings of fact open to him on the evidence, and there was no basis for appellate interference.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 73
Parties
Appellant: Deir; Respondents: Al Athel & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (rolled Up Hearing)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Oral Agreements, Director's Fees, Remuneration Disputes, Procedural Fairness, Active Involvement in Company Management
Contract Law Employment Law Oral Agreements Director's Fees Remuneration Disputes Procedural Fairness Active Involvement in Company Management

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deir

Appellant

Al Athel & Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (rolled Up Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement existed entitling the claimant to director's fees of £20,000 per company per annum
  2. 2 Whether the requirement of 'active involvement' or 'active management' was properly in issue and applied correctly by the trial judge
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was breached by the judge's handling of the 'active involvement' issue

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the issue of 'active involvement' was properly raised in the pleadings and evidence, and the trial judge was entitled to make findings on that basis. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the judge's approach or application of the test. The judge's findings regarding entitlement to director's fees for the relevant companies were findings of fact open to him on the evidence, and there was no basis for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused