Dinglis Management Ltd & Anor v Dinglis Properties Ltd

Dinglis Management Ltd & Anor v Dinglis Properties Ltd

The court held that the finding of agency was inconsistent with the express purpose of establishing DML as a buffer to shield DPL from tenant claims. There was no contract or agreement for agency, and the informal family business arrangements did not necessitate the imposition of an agency relationship. Consequently, DML was not liable to account as agent, and Paul Dinglis was not liable as director for breach of duty based on agency. The cross-appeals on trust and remuneration were also dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Dinglis Management Limited; Appellant: Paul Andrew Dinglis; Respondent: Dinglis Properties Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Agency, Director's Duties, Limitation of Actions, Family Business Arrangements
Company Law Equity and Trusts Agency Director's Duties Limitation of Actions Family Business Arrangements

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dinglis Management Limited

Appellant

Paul Andrew Dinglis

Appellant

Dinglis Properties Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dinglis Management Limited (DML) acted as agent for Dinglis Properties Limited (DPL) and was liable to account for rents received
  2. 2 Whether Paul Dinglis was liable as a director for breach of duty to DPL
  3. 3 Whether DML held rents on trust for DPL

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the finding of agency was inconsistent with the express purpose of establishing DML as a buffer to shield DPL from tenant claims. There was no contract or agreement for agency, and the informal family business arrangements did not necessitate the imposition of an agency relationship. Consequently, DML was not liable to account as agent, and Paul Dinglis was not liable as director for breach of duty based on agency. The cross-appeals on trust and remuneration were also dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Orders for accounts by DML as DPL’s agent and by Paul as director of DPL set aside
  • DPL’s cross-appeal on the invoices issue dismissed