Maggs (t/a BM Builders) v Marsh & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1058 (07 July 2006)

Maggs (t/a BM Builders) v Marsh & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1058 (07 July 2006)

The principle that evidence of subsequent conduct is inadmissible to construe a contract does not apply to oral or partly oral contracts. In such cases, the court may consider subsequent conduct to test the accuracy of recollections and to determine what was actually agreed. The recorder erred in excluding such evidence, and this error undermined the factual findings and the outcome of the case.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1058
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Brian Royle Maggs t/a BM Builders (A Firm); Defendant/respondent: Guy Anthony Stayner Marsh; Defendant/respondent: Marsh Jewellery Co Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Oral Contracts, Interpretation of Contracts, Admissibility of Evidence, Subsequent Conduct, Construction Disputes
Contract Law Civil Procedure Oral Contracts Interpretation of Contracts Admissibility of Evidence Subsequent Conduct Construction Disputes

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 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Royle Maggs t/a BM Builders (A Firm)

Claimant/appellant

Guy Anthony Stayner Marsh

Defendant/respondent

Marsh Jewellery Co Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of subsequent conduct is admissible to determine the terms of an oral or partly oral contract
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of post-contractual conduct when determining the scope of the original contract

Ratio Decidendi

The principle that evidence of subsequent conduct is inadmissible to construe a contract does not apply to oral or partly oral contracts. In such cases, the court may consider subsequent conduct to test the accuracy of recollections and to determine what was actually agreed. The recorder erred in excluding such evidence, and this error undermined the factual findings and the outcome of the case.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • recorder's order set aside
  • case remitted to Bristol County Court for rehearing unless parties resolve dispute