Safeera Akram v Academy Doors and Windows Ltd
[2023] EWHC 1653 (KB)
DMH Electrical (UK) Limited v MK City Group Limited
21 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2960 (KB)
High Court
Two old friends, a plumber and an electrician, had a business disagreement over unpaid bills. The electrician sued the plumber. The court agreed with the electrician, saying the plumber's arguments were nitpicky and that the contract was clear enough, even if some details were worked out later. The plumber had to pay.
Key Facts
- •Dispute between two former school friends, one a plumber (Defendant) and the other an electrician (Claimant), over unpaid invoices for electrical work on a building site.
- •Claimant initially claimed £157,916; after a partial payment, £72,728 remained in dispute.
- •Two contracts (C1 and C2) were central to the appeal.
- •C1 concerned electrical installations, including MVHR units, with the price of the MVHR units determined after the initial quote.
- •C2 involved provisional costings for electrical work on different house sizes, with upgrades also priced.
- •Defendant's primary arguments centered on pleading deficiencies and contractual uncertainty.
Legal Principles
Appeals are a review of the lower court's decision; the appeal court can allow an appeal if the decision was wrong or unjust.
CPR rule 52.21
Challenges to findings of fact require a high threshold; the appellate court defers to the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility.
Henderson v Foxworth [2014] UKSC 41; Grizzly Business v Stena Drilling [2017] EWCA civ 94; Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ. 464; Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings [2023] EWCA Civ. 191
Statements of claim must clearly define the claims; new points should be raised by amending the statement of case.
Prudential v Revenue and Customs [2016] EWHC Civ. 376
Courts should determine the claims actually brought, not those that might have been brought.
Scicluna v Zippy Stitch [2018] EWCA Civ. 1320
In contractual interpretation, courts should strive to uphold commercial bargains and avoid finding contracts void for uncertainty unless absolutely necessary.
Organic Group v Charterhouse [2007] EWHC Civ. 1275; Openwork v Forte [2018] EWCA Civ 783
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Judge's interpretation of the contracts and the pleadings was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The Defendant's arguments regarding pleading deficiencies and contractual uncertainty were rejected.
Claimant awarded costs of £15,554.
The appeal was unsuccessful.