Holmes -v- Lingard and Others [2018] JRC 071B (17 April 2018)

Holmes -v- Lingard and Others [2018] JRC 071B (17 April 2018)

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish that a binding agreement was reached between Mr Holmes and Mr Lingard in June 2011 or by subsequent conduct. The terms were never sufficiently certain, and the documentation showed ongoing negotiations rather than concluded agreement. The Master was correct to grant summary judgment and strike out the relevant claims. Any claim in unjust enrichment was limited and subject to proper pleading.

Citation
[2018] JRC 071B
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Shane Michael Holmes; First Respondent/first Defendant: Harry James Lingard; Third Defendant: Angel Fish Limited; Second Defendant: HJL Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master's Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Unjust Enrichment, Reflective Loss, Formation of Contract, Certainty of Terms
Contract Law Civil Procedure Striking Out Summary Judgment Amendment of Pleadings Unjust Enrichment Reflective Loss Formation of Contract +1 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shane Michael Holmes

Appellant/plaintiff

Harry James Lingard

First Respondent/first Defendant

Angel Fish Limited

Third Defendant

HJL Holdings Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master's Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties reached a binding agreement in June 2011 or by subsequent conduct
  2. 2 Whether the claims should be struck out or summary judgment granted
  3. 3 Whether amendments to pleadings should be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish that a binding agreement was reached between Mr Holmes and Mr Lingard in June 2011 or by subsequent conduct. The terms were never sufficiently certain, and the documentation showed ongoing negotiations rather than concluded agreement. The Master was correct to grant summary judgment and strike out the relevant claims. Any claim in unjust enrichment was limited and subject to proper pleading.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Mr Lingard on the issue of alleged agreement in June 2011
  • Strike out of Mr Holmes' claims regarding the alleged agreement and reflective loss