Ackerman v Ackerman & Ors

Ackerman v Ackerman & Ors

The Court found that while Mr Thornhill breached certain procedural requirements under the Agreement by failing to inform Joseph of Naomi's proposed adjustments (notably the transfer of Superetto subsidiaries and jointly owned assets), these breaches were not material. The breaches did not affect the inevitability of the outcome, as Mr Thornhill would have reached the same substantive conclusion regardless of further representations. There was no actual bias or collusion. The Agreement was not repudiated and remains in force; the process should proceed to its final stage.

Parties
Claimant: Joseph Ackerman; Defendant: Naomi Ackerman; Defendant: Barry Ackerman; Defendant: Andrew Thornhill; Defendant: Bana One Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Family/commercial Trusts / Judgment After Expedited Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Determination, Procedural Fairness, Bias, Family Business Disputes, Share Transfers, Charity Law
Trusts Company Law Contract Law Expert Determination Procedural Fairness Bias Family Business Disputes Share Transfers +1 more

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

Parties

Joseph Ackerman

Claimant

Naomi Ackerman

Defendant

Barry Ackerman

Defendant

Andrew Thornhill

Defendant

Bana One Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Family/commercial Trusts / Judgment After Expedited Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert (Mr Thornhill) departed from his instructions under the Agreement in a material respect
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness or bias in the expert determination process
  3. 3 Whether the breaches, if any, vitiate the expert's report and the steps taken under it

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that while Mr Thornhill breached certain procedural requirements under the Agreement by failing to inform Joseph of Naomi's proposed adjustments (notably the transfer of Superetto subsidiaries and jointly owned assets), these breaches were not material. The breaches did not affect the inevitability of the outcome, as Mr Thornhill would have reached the same substantive conclusion regardless of further representations. There was no actual bias or collusion. The Agreement was not repudiated and remains in force; the process should proceed to its final stage.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed; the Agreement remains in force.
  • The parties are to proceed with the third stage of the expert determination process under the Agreement.