Stephen Fidler & Co v. Kapadia [2001] UKEAT 765_01_2009 (20 September 2001)

Stephen Fidler & Co v. Kapadia [2001] UKEAT 765_01_2009 (20 September 2001)

It is arguable that the Tribunal was not entitled to dismiss the claim in the manner it did, particularly regarding the proof of costs saved, and that its reasons on the quantum issue may be insufficiently explained. The appeal should proceed to a full hearing to address these points.

Citation
[2001] UKEAT 765_01_2009
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed to proceed to full hearing
Legal Topics
Quantum of Loss, Burden of Proof, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Quantum of Loss Burden of Proof Appeal 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal was entitled to dismiss the claim based on insufficient proof of costs saved aside from loss of profit
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's reasons on the quantum issue were sufficiently explained
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proof was correctly applied

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable that the Tribunal was not entitled to dismiss the claim in the manner it did, particularly regarding the proof of costs saved, and that its reasons on the quantum issue may be insufficiently explained. The appeal should proceed to a full hearing to address these points.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed to proceed to full hearing

Orders

  • Respondent's solicitors to write to Tribunal and Appellant's solicitors within 21 days indicating any additions or qualifications to Mr Groves' account.
  • Case to be listed as Category B, time estimate three hours.