Wright v Michael Wright Supplies Ltd & Anor

Wright v Michael Wright Supplies Ltd & Anor

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred in determining the case on written evidence alone, having excluded oral evidence from a key witness whom the defendants wished to call, and there was no agreement to dispense with an oral hearing. This amounted to procedural unfairness.

Parties
Respondent: Colin Wright; Appellant: Michael Wright Supplies Ltd; Appellant: Turner Wright Investments Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Oral Evidence, Share Sale Agreement, Consultancy Fees, Mediation, Litigants in Person

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Wright

Respondent

Michael Wright Supplies Ltd

Appellant

Turner Wright Investments Ltd

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred by determining the case on written evidence without allowing oral evidence from a key witness requested by the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the parties agreed to dispense with oral hearing and proceed on documents only
  3. 3 Whether the findings on share sale consideration and consultancy fees were justified on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred in determining the case on written evidence alone, having excluded oral evidence from a key witness whom the defendants wished to call, and there was no agreement to dispense with an oral hearing. This amounted to procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside
  • Matter remitted for re-hearing before a different judge