David Man & Anor v Hazelend LLP

David Man & Anor v Hazelend LLP

The counterclaim for rectification is arguable and must proceed to trial, as there is a plausible case that the Written Assignment did not reflect the parties’ common intention. The counterclaim and defence based on an alleged 2019 oral variation are unarguable and are dismissed, as contemporaneous documents show no such agreement was reached. The limitation defence is arguable and must proceed to trial, as there is insufficient evidence at this stage to rule out Hazelend’s position regarding Mr Pym’s authority.

Parties
Claimant: David Man; Claimant: Sandford Electrical Services Limited; Defendant: Hazelend LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Summary Judgment Application; Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part; counterclaim for rectification and limitation defence to proceed to trial; counterclaim and defence based on 2019 oral variation dismissed.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Contract, Summary Judgment, Limitation Defence, Assignment of Debt, Oral Variation of Contract
Contract Law Civil Procedure Rectification of Contract Summary Judgment Limitation Defence Assignment of Debt Oral Variation of Contract

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

Parties

David Man

Claimant

Sandford Electrical Services Limited

Claimant

Hazelend LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Summary Judgment Application; Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim for rectification of the Written Assignment has a real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim for a declaration of oral variation in 2019 has a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the limitation defence has a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The counterclaim for rectification is arguable and must proceed to trial, as there is a plausible case that the Written Assignment did not reflect the parties’ common intention. The counterclaim and defence based on an alleged 2019 oral variation are unarguable and are dismissed, as contemporaneous documents show no such agreement was reached. The limitation defence is arguable and must proceed to trial, as there is insufficient evidence at this stage to rule out Hazelend’s position regarding Mr Pym’s authority.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part; counterclaim for rectification and limitation defence to proceed to trial; counterclaim and defence based on 2019 oral variation dismissed.

Orders

  • Hazelend’s Defence and counterclaim based on the alleged 2019 Variation are dismissed.
  • Proceedings transferred to Central London County Court.