[2025] EWHC 2180 (Ch)

This is an appeal against an order of Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon, sitting in the County Court at Central London, made on 21^st October 2024. By that order (“the Order”) the Appellants were ordered to pay the sum of £212,600 to the Respondent, together with interest thereon.

The Appellants and the Respondent were formerly partners in a medical practice which provided general medical services, under the name of the Sai Medical Centre. Unfortunately, there was a falling out between the parties, in February 2019, which has generated considerable litigation between or involving the parties. It is common ground that the partnership has now been terminated, at the latest by 18^th April 2023, but there has been a dispute between the parties as to whether the termination occurred on an earlier date.

In this action, which was commenced by claim form dated 30^th August 2022, the Respondent, as Claimant in the action, claimed against the Appellants, the Defendants in the action, arrears of an annual fixed sum which the Respondent said was due to her under the terms of the partnership agreement between the parties. The sum claimed by way of these arrears was £212,260, which was said to have accrued due between (and including) the accounting years ending on 31^st March 2019 and 31^st March 2023.

The action came to trial before Judge Evans-Gordon (“the Judge”) over three days commencing on 24^th July 2024. The Judge handed down her reserved judgment (“the Judgment”) on 21^st October 2024. For the reasons set out in the Judgment, the Judge decided that the sum of £212,260 was due to the Respondent from the Appellants, and made the Order consequential upon the Judgment. The Judge dealt with costs and the applications of the Appellants for permission to appeal and a stay of the Order in a separate judgment, which was handed down on 13^th December 2024. For the reasons set out in that separate judgment, the Appellants were ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs of the action and to make an interim payment on account of those costs in the sum of £60,000. The applications for permission to appeal and for a stay were refused.

With the permission of Trower J, granted on 20^th February 2025, the Appellants appeal against the Order. For the reasons set out in their grounds of appeal, the Appellants say that the Judge was wrong to award any sum to the Respondent, that the Order should be set aside, and that the costs order made by the Judge should be reversed in favour of the Appellants.

This is my reserved judgment on the hearing of the appeal (“the Appeal”).

On the hearing of the Appeal, the Appellants were represented by Jason Coppel KC, and Oluwaseyi Ojo, solicitor advocate. The Respondent was represented by David Warner, counsel. I am most grateful to all three advocates for their assistance, by their written and oral submissions, in my determination of the Appeal.