The High Court has ordered Tee Pigs Limited to pay a debt of £192,014 to David Patton and Robert Patton, after finding that the amount owed to David Patton Ltd. had not been paid. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice William M. McKechnie on 11 July 2013 in proceedings seeking recovery of the debt.
David Patton Ltd. (DPL) assigned to the two plaintiffs, who were its directors and shareholders, any debts Tee Pigs owed it. The court found the assignment effective, allowing them to pursue the claim as if DPL were the plaintiff.
The claim arose from dealings between the companies, including animal feed supplied by DPL and other sums recorded in their intercompany accounts. The court considered a breakdown supported by an accountant’s report: £110,773.64 for feed invoices and £81,240.97 in other items, including insurance, audit fees, equipment transferred from DPL’s Sion Mills division and other charges. The reported total was £192,014.61; the judgment concluded that the amounts claimed were owed.
Tee Pigs argued, among other things, that its debt had been settled before or around 1 June 2001, that representations meant it owed nothing, and that payments made to a new feed company had discharged the historical feed balance. It also disputed whether some costs had been incurred and relied on mistake concerning the value of Tee Pigs when its shares were sold.
The court accepted evidence from DPL’s bookkeeper that a £110,773.64 credit entered in the new feed company’s account in June 2000 was an accounting adjustment, not a payment by Tee Pigs. The judge preferred her account over that of a defence witness, whose evidence he considered based on general practice rather than specific recollection. Company accounts and the auditor’s evidence also supported the conclusion that the debt remained outstanding.
The judge found that Robert Patton had not discussed the intercompany balance with the purchasers of Tee Pigs’ shares or represented that no debt was due. Charles Toal had acted in his own interest and had no authority to represent DPL or the plaintiffs. The defence pleas of settlement and waiver had been abandoned or lacked evidential support; the court also rejected the representation, estoppel and mistake arguments.
The court concluded that the debt had not been discharged and that no other defence applied. It granted the decree sought. The judgment does not specify a separate costs order.