Chantrey Martin v Martin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JENKINS |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 1953 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1953] EWCA Civ J0714-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1953] EWCA Civ J0714-2
Lord Justice Somervell
and
Lord Justice Jenkins
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
MR F. ASHE LINCOLN, Q.C., and MR N. LLOYD-DAVIES (instructed by Messrs B.L. Harris & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant).
MR LEON MacLAREN (instructed by Messrs Nash. Field & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Plaintiffs).
LORD JUSTICE SOMERVELL; I will ask Lord Justice Jenkins to read the Judgment of the Court.
This is an appeal by the Defendant from an Order of Mr Justice Barry dated the 4th June, 1953, allowing an appeal by the Plaintiffs from a Master's Order dated the 22nd. may, 1953, which had ordered the production by the Plaintiffs of certain documents disclosed in their Affidavit of Documents as relevant documents in their possession or power which theyobjected to produce on the grounds stated in such affidavit.
The question in the appeal is whether the learned Judge was right in holding that the grounds relied on by the Plaintiffs were sufficient in law to entitle them to refuse production of all or any and if so which of these admittedly relevant documents.
The Plaintiffs are a firm of chartered accountants and, according to the Statement of Claim endorsed on the Writ, the Defendant was in their employment from the 18th. July, 1951,or thereabouts, down to the 22nd. April, 1952,as a senior audit clerk at a salary of £43 6s. 8d. per calendar month payable in advance on the first day of each such month. The Statement of Claim goes on to allege that on the last-mentioned date the Defendant in breach of his contract of service with the Plaintiffs absented himself from his duties without leave or notice thus terminating his employment without notice either given or received and without reasonable cause. Then there is an allegation, not material for the present purpose, to the effect that the Plaintiffs had lent the Defendant a sum of £7 which he had failed to repay, followed by a claim for £93. 13s. 4d. made up of one month's salary paid in advance for April, 1952, and one month's salary in lieu of notice, together with the loan of £7.
The Defendant by his Defence and Counterclaim (so far as material for the present purpose) admitted his employment by the Plaintiffs, with the qualification that his salary at the rate above-mentioned had commenced from the 1st. January, 1952, he having previously from the 18th, July, 1951, been employed in the same capacity at a salary of £10 per week; alleged that he was impliedly entitled to reasonable notice (which he put at three calendar months) to terminate his employment; denied the breach of contract alleged against him; contended that on the contrary the Plaintiffs on the 18th. April, 1952, had wrongfully dismissed the Defendant from his employment; and counterclaimed for the sum of £130, being three months' salary in lieu of notice.
The circumstance 8 on which the Defendant's allegation of wrongful dismissal is based are set out in Particulars contained in the Defence and amplified in Further and Better particulars subsequently delivered pursuant to a request by the Plaintiffs. The short effect of these Particulars was that in March, 1952, the Defendant in the course of his duties commenced an audit for the financial year ending 31st. August, 1951, of the books of a certain Limited Company which was a client of the Plaintiffs and to which I will refer as "the client Company", the method being to take the figures for the financial year ending 31st. August, 1950, and to build up the next year's figures with reference to the appropriate heading of the previous year; that in the course of such audit the Defendant discovered certain irregularities in the audited accounts for the year ending 31st. August, 1950, which the Plaintiffs had audited; that prior to the 18th. April, 1952, he had discussed his draft accounts for the year ending 31st. August, 1951, and the audited accounts for the previous year with the Plaintiffs' senior partner, Mr H.G. Martin, and had suggested adjustments to correct the irregularities he had detected; that Mr Martin refused to allow these adjustments to be made and ordered the Defendant to make tax computations on the basis of the unadjusted accounts; and that on the 18th. April, 1952, after a further discussion of the accounts in question, in which Mr Martin maintained his former attitude, the Defendant told Mr Martin that he would not be a party to finalising the draft accounts or making the tax computations unless the suggested adjustments were made; whereupon Mr Martin, acting for the Plaintiffs, summarily dismissed him. The alleged irregularities in the accounts in question, as particularised by the Defendant, included understatement of sales, understatement of gross profit, and understatement of administration expenses and salaries, and were (in effect) alleged by the Defendant to be calculated to mislead the shareholders and to evade payment of the proper amount of tax on the profits of the client Company. ThePlaintiffs in their Reply denied the whole of the Defendant's allegations of irregularities in the draft and audited accounts of the client Company and also denied the alleged dismissal of the Defendant.
Such being the nature of the case on the Pleadings it could not well be disputed that all documents in the Plaintiffs' possession or power relating to the preparation of the client Company's accounts for the years ending 31st. August, 1950 and 1951 are documents relating to matters in question in the action, and therefore proper to be disclosed. As we have already mentioned, they were in fact duly included in the Plaintiffs' Affidavit of Documents, but with an objection taken in the body of the affidavit to their production, the validity of this objection being the subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equitas Ltd and Another v Horace Holman and Company Ltd and Another
...from the relevant”: Yasuda Ltd v Orion Underwriting Ltd, [1995] QB at 174 p.191F per Colman J. 28 Horace Holman argued, citing Chandrey Martin v Martin, [1953] 2 QB 286, that they are not obliged to disclose or provide copies of documents created for their own purpose including their IBA l......
-
B. v B. (Matrimonial Proceedings: Discovery)
...are referred to in the judgment: Bovill v. Cowan (1870) L.R. 5 Ch.App. 495. Carew v. Carew [1891] P. 360. Chantrey Martin v. Martin [1953] 2 Q.B. 286; [1953] 3 W.L.R. 459; [1953] 2 All E.R. 691, C.A. Crompton (Alfred) Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (No. 2) [1974......
-
Anthony Dixon v North Bristol NHS Trust
...breach his professional duty of confidence: Attorney-General v Mulholland Attorney-General v Foster [1963] 2 QB 477, 489–490, and Chantrey Martin v Martin [1953] 2 QB 286. In Parry-Jones v Law Society [1969] 1 Ch 1 a solicitor's duty of confidence towards his clients was held to be overr......
-
R (Prudential Plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
...Priest [1930] AC 558 at 581 (cited in Three Rivers (No 6) at paragraph 109), New Victoria Hospital v Ryan [1993] ICR 201 at 203H, Chantry Martin v Martin [1953] 2 QB 286 at 293/4, Mfongbong Umoh (19870 84 Cr.App.R. 138 at 143. I do not assert that these references (and others like them) ......
-
Litigation
...of cost and eiciency): see Leighton International Ltd v Hodges [2012] NSWSC 458 at [13], per McDougall J. 357 Chantrey Martin v Martin [1953] 2 QB 286 at 291, per Jenkins LJ; Environment Agency v Lewin Fryer & Partners [2006] EWHC 1597 (TCC) at [38]–[44], per HHJ Coulson QC. A document may ......