Decision Reserved On Appeal Over Goodwill

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27705, 8 July 1955, Page 13

Decision Reserved On Appeal Over Goodwill

supreme couni

Decision was reserved by Mr Justice Henry m the Supreme Court yesterctay rett a " « by Roydon William GarF r k n™"’;? airE a Judgment trate « CoZt S -M- >n the Magisa ln . ta , vour of Jchn McLeod, his wife f? nd Jan u' An Sus McLeod, claimed £4OO Wh ° m Garrett had

and r Mr T F M^ h ? ! n appe ? red f or Barrett, spomtents S ' B ° Wle for the tw ° re ‘

In September, 1946. the McLeods for a S te?m ,n r Durham street to Garrett and Car?lt? , K ne ? ear anc ' 11 months. the goodwill for “ ,d Mr Mahon, stating the case sion for 3 ?™ 61 an *- w as in possession for four years and the McT pnd*. J the shop back They o? e £^o l °whFrh ba £ k < ? rrett the sum good Win T*‘ h .t haa paid for ' he vear’T Tb ? y th . en gave him one not to qu,t - but Garrett did The Mel pnss ,'‘ ssion of 'he shop. A/Je fuoLeods took proceedings and in the M m f » or P° ssessi ™' was heard " th .? Mapsfrate’s Court in 1952 It defended, but eventually an order th h the , M cLa ods be given possession after the expiry of ci x A few days after ‘the order Offer "to 66 tha McLe «ds repeated their ?!\ ar ,. to , p ? y Garrett £4OO and a tew months later they renewed the offer When Garrett did give up possession Day th hirn n th > ann fcLe ° ds refUKeo to him the £4OO. Garrett sued thp the L £ > 4(m' n t P e .! Vla g istra te's Court for ZZZ hls clalm failed. In a 1«54 dpllv . e y ed on February 25. *pe Magistrate found for the wfPthlt »- The . baS ' S of his dec 'ision ’I P ,ain “ff claimed on a fnr?hS but ,bere was no consideration 10 1- thaf Promise to pay. Mr Mahon submitted that Garrett did a C o<nk de - ration for the Promise pay 4 £40 9 ln that at the implied ’ m Phed consent of ine McLeods he refrained from lodging an appeal against the order for possession and also that he handed bac H to the McLeods the unimpaired goodwill of the business. Mr Bowie submitted that forbearaJ\ce appeal did not amount to consideration. There was nothing to suggest that the McLeods knew anything about the right to appeal. Garrett. in his evidence in the Lower Court, said he was not relying on the McLeods’ offer of £4OO. After the order for possession was made Garrett applied to the City Council for permission to erect a shop diagonally across from the McLeods’ shop. That answered the suggestion that the £4OO

was a promise for forbearing to appeal. The evidence in the Lower Court also showed that Garrett did nothing to maintain the goodwill. He bought a shop in the same area and retained 1 ?? s l some °f the customers from "£ c l- e ods’ shop. Further, he closed the McLeods’ shop 10 days before handing over the keys to them and, as it was a dairy, nothing was likely to drive customers away faster than not being able to get milk for 10 days. Garrett had stated his intention of hanging on to the goodwill he had built up. He left the McLeods’ shop in a disgraceful condition when he vacated it, according to the evidence given by a city inspector. Mr Bowie submitted that the appeal must be dismissed and the Magistrate’s judgment affirmed. After hearing legal argument by counsel, his Honour reserved his decision. DECREES NISI GRANTED A decree nisi was granted on the ground stated to the petitioner in each of the following undefended petitions for divorce heard before Mr Justice Henry in the Supreme Court yesterday:— Desertion.—Keith Henry Alfred Robinson (Mr E. M. Hay) v. Florence Elizabeth Robinson: Dorothy Evelyn Quested (Mr D. W. Russell) v. Charles Edwin Quested (Mr R. E. Wylie); Doris Elizabeth Snelson (Mr V. G. Spiller) v. Arthur Snelson.

Separation.—Fiona Parish (Mr E. M. Hay) v. William Thomas Parish; Charlotte Burrows (Mr W. F. Brown) v. Horace Samuel Burrows (Mr R Twyneham): Lawrence Clifton Young (Mr D. H. Godfrey) v. Faith Patricia Youn«: Raymond Patrick Tomlinson (Mr K. W. Frampton) v. Isobel Vera Tomlinson: Herbert Edward Mallett (Mr R. w. Edgley) v. Ella Laurene Mallett (Mr R. Twyneham); Marjorie Joyce Aitchison (Mr D. R. Fountain) v. Allan Stanley Aitchison; Ruth Vera Gloistein (Mr D. J. Hewitt) v. Carl: William Gloistein; Gwendoline Doreen Kaye (Mr V. G. Spiller) v. William Sheard Kaye: Bertha Nola Pullar (Mr E. B. E. Taylor) v. Lindsay Gardiner Pullar.

_ Adultery.—Harry Theodore Cox (Mr R. E. Wylie) v. Dawn Elaine Cox (Mr E. M. Hay) and John Joseph Gerardus Tmmers named as co-respondent; Edward Harold Riley (Mr D. W. Russell) v. Eileen Elsie Riley (Mr A. W. Brown) and Francis Cracroft Wilson named as co-respondent: Donalda Cathrine Mary Collins (Mr W. F Brown) v. Roland Albert Collins.