Amir Khodaparast v Peter Mark Arnstein
[2023] EWHC 1782 (KB)
Russell Jones v Dawn Hagger
21 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 2502 (KB)
High Court
Two business partners fought over money owed. A judge used an expert's report to decide, despite messy records. The appeal court upheld the judge's decision because there were no major mistakes, even though the judge made a small calculation error. Appeals can only change decisions if there are major errors of law.
Key Facts
- •Russell Jones and Dawn Hagger were partners in a pawn shop and lending business, Cash 4 U.
- •The business operated from July 2013 to December 2014 and then ceased operations due to a breakdown in the partners' relationship.
- •A dispute arose over the amount owed to Mr. Jones as his share of the partnership.
- •Proceedings were issued in 2016, leading to a judgment against Ms. Hagger in 2017 for a contract sum plus interest, with an account to be taken.
- •A single joint expert, Professor Barnes, was appointed to determine the amount owed.
- •The business records were in poor condition, lacking a bank account and reliable records of transactions.
- •The judge found that neither party was solely to blame for the poor records and relied on the expert's report to determine the amount owed.
- •Mr. Jones appealed, challenging the expert's methodology and conclusions, but permission was only granted for limited aspects of the appeal.
Legal Principles
An appeal is a review, not a retrial. New evidence cannot generally be introduced on appeal.
Case law precedent (implied)
The court's power on appeal is limited to the matters for which permission to appeal was granted.
Pepperall J's order granting leave to appeal
The judge's decision will not be overturned unless there is an error of principle or arithmetic error.
Case law precedent (implied)
Outcomes
Mr. Jones' appeal was dismissed.
The judge found no error of principle or arithmetic in Professor Barnes' report or her conclusions. The court's remit was limited to specific points, and Mr. Jones failed to demonstrate error on those points.
Ms. Hagger's cross-appeal regarding costs was dismissed.
Given the outcome of the main appeal, the judge's costs order was deemed appropriate.