Hamid Nawaz-Khan & Ors v UAP Limited

Hamid Nawaz-Khan & Ors v UAP Limited

Claims Provision and Deferred Fee Income do not represent assets and should not be included in the Purchase Price; the Expert Determination was manifestly erroneous and not binding; rectification is granted for unilateral mistake; estoppel applies; breach of warranty found regarding accounting standards but not aged debts.

Parties
Claimant: Hamid Nawaz-Khan; Claimant: Timothy Williams; Claimant: Patricia Nawaz-Khan; Defendant: UAP Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim partially succeeds
Legal Topics
Share Purchase Agreement, Rectification, Estoppel, Misrepresentation, Breach of Warranty, Accounting Standards

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamid Nawaz-Khan

Claimant

Timothy Williams

Claimant

Patricia Nawaz-Khan

Claimant

UAP Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Final Judgment After Trial

  1. 1 Proper construction of Purchase Price formula under SPA
  2. 2 Binding effect of Expert Determination
  3. 3 Rectification for unilateral mistake

Ratio Decidendi

Claims Provision and Deferred Fee Income do not represent assets and should not be included in the Purchase Price; the Expert Determination was manifestly erroneous and not binding; rectification is granted for unilateral mistake; estoppel applies; breach of warranty found regarding accounting standards but not aged debts.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim partially succeeds

Orders

  • Purchase Price to exclude Claims Provision and Deferred Fee Income
  • Rectification of SPA to clarify only assets are included