This is an AI-generated summary of a selected monitored public legal source and may omit context. It is general information only, not legal advice, and is not a substitute for reading the source or consulting an attorney.
AI summary
The Supreme Court of Appeal dealt with whether an investment mandate was concluded with Mr Davison personally or with a company connected to him. It found that the email wording, read in context, did not establish personal contracting, and that the appeal should succeed.
This appears to concern contractual interpretation and the identification of a contracting party in an investment mandate.
Evidence from source
The appeal is upheld with costs. 2 The order of the full court is set aside
Supports: plain_summary