Maggs (t/a BM Builders) v Marsh & Anor

Maggs (t/a BM Builders) v Marsh & Anor

The principle excluding evidence of subsequent conduct applies only to written contracts. In oral or partly oral contracts, evidence of subsequent conduct is admissible to test the accuracy of recollections and credibility of witnesses regarding what was agreed. The trial judge erred in law by excluding such evidence, undermining the factual findings and the judgment.

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, Evidence of Subsequent Conduct, Contract Interpretation, Appeals Procedure
Contract Law Civil Procedure Oral Contracts Evidence of Subsequent Conduct Contract Interpretation Appeals Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
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 scope of an oral contract
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in excluding post-contractual evidence relevant to the credibility of witnesses and the scope of the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The principle excluding evidence of subsequent conduct applies only to written contracts. In oral or partly oral contracts, evidence of subsequent conduct is admissible to test the accuracy of recollections and credibility of witnesses regarding what was agreed. The trial judge erred in law by excluding such evidence, undermining the factual findings and the judgment.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Recorder's order set aside
  • Case remitted to Bristol County Court for rehearing before another judge, subject to parties demonstrating attempts at settlement