Arla Foods UK Plc v Barnes & Ors

Arla Foods UK Plc v Barnes & Ors

The contract did not bind Withgill Farm Limited to supply milk after the sale of the dairy business, nor was Mr Willes a successor bound by the contract. No implied term prevented the sale without assignment. The claim fails. The counterclaim for underpayment due to invalid milk tests succeeds as the company proved the milk was of the highest quality and Arla's testing method was flawed.

Parties
Claimant: Arla Foods UK plc; Defendant: George Barnes; Defendant: Mary Barnes; Defendant: David Barnes; Defendant: Withgill Farm Limited; Defendant: Peter Willes; Defendant: D H Willes & Partners (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Implied Terms, Sale of Business, Supply Agreements, Damages, Counterclaim
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Implied Terms Sale of Business Supply Agreements Damages Counterclaim

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arla Foods UK plc

Claimant

George Barnes

Defendant

Mary Barnes

Defendant

David Barnes

Defendant

Withgill Farm Limited

Defendant

Peter Willes

Defendant

D H Willes & Partners (a firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Withgill Farm Limited remained the 'producer' under the contract after sale of the dairy business
  2. 2 Whether Mr Willes was a 'successor' bound by the contract
  3. 3 Whether an implied term prevented disposal of the dairy business without assignment of the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The contract did not bind Withgill Farm Limited to supply milk after the sale of the dairy business, nor was Mr Willes a successor bound by the contract. No implied term prevented the sale without assignment. The claim fails. The counterclaim for underpayment due to invalid milk tests succeeds as the company proved the milk was of the highest quality and Arla's testing method was flawed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed with judgment for the defendants
  • Counterclaim by Withgill Farm Limited allowed for £53,425 plus interest