Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL Q.C. and MS. CLAIRE JACKSON (instructed by Zermansky & Partners) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. MR. PAUL LETMAN (instructed by Saunders, Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. ___________________
Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO Official Shorthand Writers and Tape Transcribers Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
This seems to me to be a clear statement that the true split was not explained or revealed to the Defendant at the meeting, even indirectly.
Mr.�Weatherill�Q.C. argued that this clear answer was contrary to the other evidence and should be disregarded. For the reasons I�have already given I�consider that this evidence was, in fact, entirely consistent with both the evidence of Mr.�Storey and the earlier evidence of Mr.�Barrand. It confirms my finding that there was no agreement as alleged on the part of the Defendant.
(b)�the movement of the fire exit from one wall of the basement of the Property to another;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.