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.
LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH MR JUSTICE BLACKBURNE ____________________
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR T HARRY (instructed by Messrs Juvenil Alves Solicitors, London WC1X 8LR) appeared on behalf of the Appellant MR A JACKSON (instructed by Messrs Philip Senior & Co, Retford DN22 6BL) appeared on behalf of the Respondents ____________________
Mr Harry stressed the answer that Mr Liu intended to work as a husband and wife partnership in the premises now, and also the fact that in the last answer which I have cited Mr Liu gives reasons which, he suggests, explains what has changed since Wonder Kitchen was sold. That answer is very difficult to understand and Mr Harry was unable to explain to what Mr Liu was referring. Moreover, there is no explanation on those lines or at all given by Mr Liu's accountant, Mr Jonathan Liu.
He had earlier repeated his assertion in his witness statement that the Wonder Kitchen business was his and not his wife's. He claimed that he ran it thorough her. It seems to me that the thrust of Mr Liu's evidence was that, just as with Wonder Kitchen where he was the landlord and owned the business but his wife did the work, and that was a sort of partnership between him and his wife, so at No 81 the same system would operate.
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.