The parties disputed, inter alia, what had been agreed at a meeting. A note, prepared after the meeting, was claimed to record it. The judge had declined to make a finding in relation to the date when a note had been written, saying only that, since he regarded the date when, and the circumstances in which, it came to be made as wholly uncertain, the note was of no help to him in deciding what had been agreed at the meeting.
Held: The court remitted the case for rehearing. The judge was in error. He should have made a finding. Jonathan Parker LJ: the judge should have tackled the issue of the note ‘head on’ and have made a finding about it.
Judges:
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker The President Lord Justice Thorpe
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 1813
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stephens and Another v Cannon and Another CA 14-Mar-2005
The claimants had purchased land from the defendants. The contract was conditional on a development which did not take place. The master had been presented with very different valuations of the property.
Held: The master was not entitled to . .
See Also – Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Hayward CA 27-Apr-2005
Validity of guarantee and effectiveness of release. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178561