Image from Google Jackets

Francis v Harris and Another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 07 EG 70-74(3)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: CA 30 March 1988. Appeal by surveyor (F) in an action for professional fees in relation to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of H`s land. Cc judge rejected F`s claim for the unpaid balance of fees after allowing for the amount paid by the acquiring authority. There had been no express agreement between the parties as to fees payable. H assumed F would be paid wholly by the acquiring authority; F considered that he would be receiving a contribution to his fees from the authority and submitted that he should be entitled to reasonable renumeration. Cc judge preferred H`s evidence, concluding that the parties worked on the basis of Ryde`s Scale and F would not be entitled to be paid more than the prescribed amount which the DV was authorised to allow as an element of compensation. CA held that this conclusion rendered the judgment unsustainable; the judgment could not stand and CA did not have the material to substitute its own finding on the intention of the parties on the que
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS40396 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 23531-1001

CA 30 March 1988. Appeal by surveyor (F) in an action for professional fees in relation to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of H`s land. Cc judge rejected F`s claim for the unpaid balance of fees after allowing for the amount paid by the acquiring authority. There had been no express agreement between the parties as to fees payable. H assumed F would be paid wholly by the acquiring authority; F considered that he would be receiving a contribution to his fees from the authority and submitted that he should be entitled to reasonable renumeration. Cc judge preferred H`s evidence, concluding that the parties worked on the basis of Ryde`s Scale and F would not be entitled to be paid more than the prescribed amount which the DV was authorised to allow as an element of compensation. CA held that this conclusion rendered the judgment unsustainable; the judgment could not stand and CA did not have the material to substitute its own finding on the intention of the parties on the que