Mark Shaw v The Estate of Martin Wood
[2023] EWHC 975 (KB)
Ayoub Rofail v Mohammed Hassanin
25 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 964 (KB)
High Court
A rich guy gave his employee a large sum of money. They disagreed about whether it was a loan or payment for work. The judge looked at emails and testimony. He decided it was payment for work, but the agreement wasn't solid enough to be a legal contract. So, nobody got more money.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Ayoub Rofail won £6.75m on the National Lottery in 2006.
- •He employed Mr. Mohammed Hassanin at his garage business (PAL) from around 2007.
- •Mr. Rofail transferred £390,000 to Mr. Hassanin on 8 April 2014.
- •Mr. Rofail claimed the transfer was a loan; Mr. Hassanin claimed it was a profit share from property development projects.
- •Mr. Hassanin counterclaimed for further sums allegedly owed under a profit-sharing agreement.
- •Mr. Hassanin purchased a property (91 Mackenzie Road) in October 2014.
- •PAL was dissolved in October 2015.
- •Mr. Hassanin sold 91 Mackenzie Road in February 2021.
- •Mr. Rofail's claim was for recovery of the alleged loan; Mr. Hassanin's counterclaim was for outstanding profit shares and compensation from a settlement with London Borough of Camden regarding PAL's premises.
- •Email correspondence between July 2015 supported Mr. Hassanin's claim.
Legal Principles
Assessment of witness credibility, particularly when evidence is contradictory and events occurred long ago.
Gestmin v Credit Suisse [2013] EWHC 3560 (Com) at [16]-[22]
Importance of contemporaneous written evidence in resolving disputes.
Re Mumtaz Properties [2011] EWCA Civ 610 at [14]; The Ocean Frost [1985] 1 Lloyds Rep 1 at 57
Agreements in principle are not binding if important points remain unsettled, rendering the agreement incomplete.
Chitty on Contracts (35th Edition) at paragraph 4-146; Western Broadcasting Services v Seaga [2007] UKPC 19; [2007] E.M.L.R. 18 at [19]; Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55
Outcomes
Both Mr. Rofail's claim and Mr. Hassanin's counterclaim were dismissed.
The court found the £390,000 payment was not a loan but a payment for Mr. Hassanin's work on property development projects, based on an 'in principle' agreement which lacked the certainty to be an enforceable contract. The counterclaim for compensation was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence of an agreement.