Kahn v Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, November 15, 2007, [2007] EWHC 2659 (QB)
Linked as:
Extract
Kahn v Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, November 15, 2007, [2007] EWHC 2659 (QB)
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 2659 (QB)
Case No: TLQ/07/0366IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate:15 /11/2007Before :MR JUSTICE FOSKETT- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Mr Miles Croally (instructed by Dean & Dean Solicitors) for the ClaimantMiss Suzanne McKie (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer Solicitors) for the DefendantHearing dates: 9, 10, 11 & 12 October 2007- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Approved JudgmentI direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic..............................MR JUSTICE FOSKETTMr Justice Foskett : Introduction1. This case concerns bonuses to which the Claimant says he is entitled in relation to work carried out for the Defendant in the years 2004, 2005 and 2006. He seeks an account of all bonus payments due under two bonus schemes, (i) the Capital Company Bonus Scheme for the years 2004 and 2005 and (ii) what has been termed `the Special Bonus Scheme' for the years 2005 and 2006.2. The issue before me has centred exclusively on (ii). Although the Claimant merely seeks an account, it is plain from the way he puts his case that, if his interpretation of the effect of the Special Bonus Scheme is correct, he would be entitled to substantial sums from the Defendant. He seeks a little short of £500,000. 3. The Defendant's case is the Claimant's interpretation of the relevant agreement is erroneous and that, on its proper interpretation, the Claimant is entitled to little, if anything. 4. I understand that the Defendant suggested to Master Eyre that a split trial should take place in the sense that, if the Claimant's interpretation of the scheme was correct, the precise amount to be paid would be dealt with subsequently. Mr Croally tells me that Master Eyre rejected that suggestion and the matter, therefore, strictly speaking, comes before me on the quantum issue also. The Claimant had put forward evidence as to quantum in his witness statement of 12 September. Some features of the claim as advanced there (assuming, of course, that the Claimant's interpretation of the scheme is correct) are challenged in Mr Slater's witness statement dated 8 October and served the day before the trial commenced. The issue of the interpretation of the scheme is plainly the central issue and the trial has proceeded without specific reference to quantum. I indicated at the conclusion of the trial that I would consider how to deal with that issue if it arose in a way that reflected the spirit of Master Eyre's decision if I should accept the Claimant's case on the construction of the agreement. I will revert to that matter if the issue should arise.The general background5. The present incarnation of Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd (hereafter referred to as `DHL') reflects the product of a number of mergers and acquisitions over the years to which I will refer briefly below. The company engages in property consultancy activities through a number of offices throughout the United Kingdom. The current Finance Director of the company, Mr John Slater, described the range of services offered by the company as including valuations, business space lettings (agency), property investment sales/purchases, rating appeals, landlord and tenant matters, property managem...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
