Gilruth v Harding

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from an order made by His Honour Judge Halbert in the Chester County Court following a three-day trial concerning the quantum of damages awarded to the Claimant for breach of contract by the Defendant. The Claimant was a professional rider engaged by the Defendant, together with his wife, who owned a horse known as "Splash". The Claimant trained and competed with the horse under a contractual arrangement which included terms on training, competition, and financial responsibilities. The contract also contained an express term that the Defendant could not engage another rider without the Claimant's consent, with a termination clause entitling the Claimant to 25% of any increase in the horse’s value should this occur.

In September 2009, the Defendant informed the Claimant she could no longer ride the horse, opting instead for a rider with a higher profile. This led to litigation concerning the contract’s terms and the valuation of the horse, which was central to the damages claim. The trial judge found in favour of the Claimant on contract terms and awarded damages of £42,500 plus interest. The Defendant appealed against the amount of damages awarded.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What was the correct valuation of the horse "Splash" as at 23 September 2009 for the purpose of calculating damages?
2. Whether the Defendant was liable to pay damages based on the agreed contractual formula following the breach involving engaging another rider without the Claimant’s consent.
3. Whether expert evidence regarding the horse’s valuation, including the impact of a previously undisclosed back condition, was properly considered and applied by the trial judge.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendant disputed the terms of the contract as found by the trial judge, contending the Claimant’s entitlement to 25% of the increase in value only arose if the horse was sold while the Claimant was still the rider.
• The Defendant challenged the valuation of the horse at £200,000, arguing that a pre-sale veterinary examination would have revealed serious back problems, significantly reducing or negating the horse’s value.
• The Defendant relied on a veterinary report (Mr Ashton) indicating that the horse had severe spinal lesions that would have been detectable prior to sale, which should have influenced the valuation and damages.
• The Defendant sought to argue for a nil or significantly reduced value based on the alleged undisclosed medical condition.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Claimant maintained the contract terms as found by the trial judge, including the entitlement to 25% of the increase in value following the breach.
• The Claimant relied on the joint expert valuation by Ms Gee, who valued the horse at £200,000 as at 23 September 2009, subject to a possible 25% reduction if the back defect had been discovered.
• The Claimant challenged the admissibility and evidential status of Mr Ashton’s veterinary report, emphasizing that it was not expert evidence properly before the court and could not be relied upon as such.
• The Claimant argued that it was not common practice for purchasers to require X-rays of the horse’s back and that the horse showed no symptoms of back pain at the relevant time.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the contractual terms and the valuation evidence. The trial judge found the contract terms as contended by the Claimant, including the termination clause entitling the Claimant to 25% of the increase in the horse’s value if another rider was engaged without consent.

Regarding valuation, the court accepted the joint expert’s valuation of £200,000 as at 23 September 2009, noting that this figure was unchallenged by admissible evidence. The court considered the veterinary report indicating severe back problems but found it inadmissible as expert evidence and noted the absence of expert evidence that a purchaser would have required X-rays of the horse’s back at the time of sale.

The court relied on the evidence of the equine physiotherapist, who had examined the horse in 2009 and found no signs of back pain or tenderness, supporting the conclusion that the back defect would not have been apparent or discovered at the time. The court also noted that the horse continued to compete successfully after the date in question, further supporting the valuation.

The court rejected the Defendant’s contention that the horse had no value or that the back defect would have substantially reduced its value beyond the 25% reduction identified by the joint expert. The court emphasised that the Defendant had the opportunity to challenge the joint expert’s report by applying for permission to instruct another expert but did not do so.

Accordingly, the court upheld the trial judge’s reasoning that the appropriate damages award was £42,500, representing 25% of the increase in value from £30,000 to £200,000.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court confirmed the trial judge’s award of damages at £42,500 plus interest for breach of contract. This decision affirms the contractual entitlement of the Claimant based on the agreed terms and the proper valuation of the horse at the relevant date. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding expert evidence and the valuation of assets in breach of contract claims. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily resolves the dispute between the parties on the specific facts and evidence presented.