Michael Jordan v David Thorner

An appeal court may require corroboration where a claimant’s records are materially unreliable, but unreliability does not justify awarding nothing where the evidence establishes that services were provided and some payment must be due. The court should assess the highest sum that can safely be concluded to be owing, giving the defendant the benefit of reasonable doubt.

An appellate court will not interfere with factual findings based on witness assessment absent an identifiable error of law or a plainly wrong conclusion. A contractual damages award requires proof of recoverable loss; time spent by family members, without evidence of payment or financial loss, does not necessarily establish such loss.

Mr Jordan appealed against findings made by Recorder McGrane following a claim for payment for farm-management labour, third-party expenses and contracting services supplied to Mr Thorner’s farm in 2016. The recorder found that Mr Jordan’s handwritten sheets were materially unreliable and awarded limited sums for labour and expenses, but nothing for contracting services. He also awarded Mr Thorner £2,500 for breach of an obligation concerning farm-assurance paperwork.

The appeal concerned the reliability and evidential effect of the sheets, the assessment of labour and contracting-service claims, and whether Mr Thorner had proved recoverable loss on the counterclaim.

1. Contracting services. The appeal was allowed in part. The judge was entitled to find that the sheets were unreliable and to require corroboration. However, the provision of an accurate invoice or time record was not a precondition to payment for contracting services, which fell outside the written contract. It was common ground that the services had been requested, provided and chargeable at reasonable rates.
2. The evidence established that at least a substantial payment was due. Relevant matters included Mr Thorner’s acceptance that the services were performed, his knowledge and encouragement of their continuing provision, the sums identified in earlier sheets, the work required to produce forage, evidence of particular tasks, and the absence of contrary disclosure. In the absence of a satisfactory alternative calculation, the highest amount safely established, giving Mr Thorner the benefit of doubt, was one-half of the amount claimed: £70,000 plus VAT.
3. Labour claims. The recorder’s preference for Mr Sutton’s evidence over Mr Jordan’s was a finding of fact. The objections went to weight and disclosed no error of law or plainly wrong conclusion. The limited award for Mr Jordan’s own labour was upheld. Reimbursement for other labourers properly depended on evidence that Mr Jordan had paid them, as required by clause 4.1 of the contract.
4. Counterclaim. The £2,500 award was set aside. The evidence showed that Mr Thorner’s brother and sister-in-law had spent time restoring the paperwork, but did not establish that Mr Thorner had paid them or otherwise suffered recoverable financial loss.
5. The appeal was dismissed in all other respects.

• Chancery Appeals: Appeal against the order of Recorder McGrane dated 9 August 2022. Appeal allowed in relation to contracting services and the counterclaim, and dismissed in all other respects.