Mercia Enterprises Ltd v Mistry

Mercia Enterprises Ltd v Mistry

The appeal was dismissed because, regardless of whether the bank account was personal or company-owned, the first defendant had sole control over the funds, failed to account for them, and appropriated them for personal use. The judge was entitled to find personal liability for money had and received based on the evidence and lack of disclosure.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mercia Enterprises Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Pratibha Mistry; Defendant: UPAL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Money Had and Received, Personal Liability of Directors, Corporate Veil, Disclosure of Evidence
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity Money Had and Received Personal Liability of Directors Corporate Veil Disclosure of Evidence

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mercia Enterprises Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Pratibha Mistry

Defendant/appellant

UPAL

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant (Pratibha Mistry) was personally liable for money had and received by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in attributing liability to the first defendant despite the existence of a company (UPAL)
  3. 3 Whether the failure to disclose evidence regarding the bank account justified the finding of personal liability

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, regardless of whether the bank account was personal or company-owned, the first defendant had sole control over the funds, failed to account for them, and appropriated them for personal use. The judge was entitled to find personal liability for money had and received based on the evidence and lack of disclosure.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment against the first defendant (Pratibha Mistry) in the sum of £12,735.44 is upheld.