Martin Hague & Anor v David Hague & Ors

Martin Hague & Anor v David Hague & Ors

The Petitioners have identified legitimate, non-fanciful concerns regarding the single joint expert's report, particularly the lack of transparency in the data used. It would be procedurally unjust to require them to proceed without the opportunity to instruct their own expert. The issue of excessive remuneration should therefore be deferred to the valuation phase.

Parties
Petitioner: Mr Martin Hague; Petitioner: Mrs Jean Hague; Respondent: Mr David Hague; Respondent: Ms Dianne Hague; Respondent: Hague Plant Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition / Liability Phase, Interlocutory Application Regarding Expert Evidence
Outcome
Petitioners' application allowed; issue of excessive remuneration deferred to phase 2.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Expert Evidence, Case Management, Remuneration of Directors
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Expert Evidence Case Management Remuneration of Directors

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Martin Hague

Petitioner

Mrs Jean Hague

Petitioner

Mr David Hague

Respondent

Ms Dianne Hague

Respondent

Hague Plant Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition / Liability Phase, Interlocutory Application Regarding Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the issue of excessive remuneration requiring expert evidence should be deferred to the valuation phase
  2. 2 Whether Petitioners should be permitted to instruct their own expert after a single joint expert's report

Ratio Decidendi

The Petitioners have identified legitimate, non-fanciful concerns regarding the single joint expert's report, particularly the lack of transparency in the data used. It would be procedurally unjust to require them to proceed without the opportunity to instruct their own expert. The issue of excessive remuneration should therefore be deferred to the valuation phase.

Court Disposition

Petitioners' application allowed; issue of excessive remuneration deferred to phase 2.

Orders

  • The issue of excessive remuneration is removed from the scope of the current trial and will be dealt with in the valuation phase.
  • No present direction as to admission of further expert evidence; to be determined after appointment and meeting of experts.