O'Neill v AVIC International (UK) Ltd, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, September 20, 2018, [2018] EWHC 2542 (QB)

Resolution Date:September 20, 2018
Issuing Organization:Queen's Bench Division
Actores:O'Neill v AVIC International (UK) Ltd
 
FREE EXCERPT

OPUS 2 DIGITAL TRANSCRIPTION

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 2542 (QB)

Case No. No. 1HQ180519

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Rolls Building

Fetter Lane

London EC4A 1NL

Thursday, 20 September 2018

Before:

MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B E T W E E N :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE CLAIMANT/APPLICANT appeared In Person.

MR J. FOX (instructed by Lee & Thompson) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER:

1 This is an application in respect of the disclosure provided by the defendant to this litigation. The litigation claim by the claimant is for what he says is a fee due to him and, indeed, due to him since around three years ago in respect of what he claims to have been his central and vitally successful role in resolving for the defendant an issue it had created for itself over the entitlement to Ofgem subsidy of a development referred to as the ``Rolleston Project''. Mr O'Neill has very fairly, if I may say so, acknowledged the broad accuracy of a summary of the issues arising provided in his skeleton argument by Mr Fox on behalf of the defendant. In particular, he has confirmed to the court, as envisaged by Mr Fox's summary, that he, Mr O'Neill, does not pursue and does not intend to pursue any alternative claim for a reasonable remuneration, what we old-fashioned lawyers sometimes used to call a quantum meruit, if he does not prove the express agreement. In his words to me just now, his case is very much that there was an agreement, he performed it, there was therefore an agreed fee due and the agreement should be honoured.

2 The claim is disputed at each of those levels. The...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL