Sharn Panesar Ltd v Pistachios In The Park Ltd & Anor

Sharn Panesar Ltd v Pistachios In The Park Ltd & Anor

The trial was unjust due to a serious procedural irregularity: the judge made binding findings of fact on issues outside the scope of the preliminary issues without a proper hearing, tainting the findings and depriving parties of procedural fairness. The order must be quashed and the matter remitted for a new trial before a different judge.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Sharn Panesar Limited; Appellant/claimant: Sharn Panesar; Respondent/defendant: Pistachios in the Park Limited; Respondent/defendant: Aysin Djemil
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Preliminary Issues Trial
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Preliminary Issues, Misrepresentation, Franchise Agreements, Procedural Irregularity, Fair Trial
Civil Procedure Contract Law Preliminary Issues Misrepresentation Franchise Agreements Procedural Irregularity Fair Trial

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharn Panesar Limited

Appellant/claimant

Sharn Panesar

Appellant/claimant

Pistachios in the Park Limited

Respondent/defendant

Aysin Djemil

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Preliminary Issues Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge made findings of fact outside the scope of preliminary issues
  2. 2 Whether such findings amounted to a serious procedural or other irregularity rendering the trial unjust
  3. 3 Whether the order should be quashed or varied

Ratio Decidendi

The trial was unjust due to a serious procedural irregularity: the judge made binding findings of fact on issues outside the scope of the preliminary issues without a proper hearing, tainting the findings and depriving parties of procedural fairness. The order must be quashed and the matter remitted for a new trial before a different judge.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order quashed
  • Case remitted for trial before a different judge in the County Court