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.
Parties
Colin Wright
Respondent
Michael Wright Supplies Ltd
Appellant
Turner Wright Investments Ltd
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 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 Whether the parties agreed to dispense with oral hearing and proceed on documents only
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment