£1 million Court Win for Vet, John Levison v Medivet
The Case
Mr Levison worked as a vet for nearly 30 years before opening Swanbridge Veterinary Group in Hull. In 2021, Mr Levison entered a partnership with Medivet for the sale of Swanbridge Veterinary Group to Medivet. Each party agreed that if John remained working at Medivet until 31 May 2022 that Medivet would pay Mr Levison £1 million of the remaining monies (the Earnout).
Medivet refused to pay Mr Levison the Earnout, despite him working the necessary hours. The conglomerate claimed that Mr Levison had agreed to leave employment earlier than 31st May 2022, a suggestion which, if accepted by the court, would have caused the loss of £1 million.
The Challenges
The case was critical in illustrating the need for a holistic assessment of the evidence. The judge accepted the submission made by retained Counsel Paul Chaisty KC, that the well-known observation of Leggatt J (as he then was) in Gestmin SGPS v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 was not a rule of law or binding precedent. Instead, all the strands of evidence that each party had adduced had to be considered in the round.
They demonstrated that whilst documentary evidence is important, other forms of evidence can be equally, or more, influential in a particular case. In this case, the spatial and visual aspects of memory were central in forming witness evidence.
As the decision in Jaffe v Greybull Capital LLP [2024] EWHC 2534 (Comm) has shown, the importance of personal recall can be preferential to documentary evidence where appropriate, and even where memory of events might be described as vestigial. In the Jaffe case, the witnesses could still credibly recall events of some eight years ago. In Mr Levison’s case, the risk of memory fading over time was even less, with the critical events taking place less than three years ago.
In this instance, Mr Levison and his witnesses vividly remembered the discussions and agreements that occurred in a meeting due to the peculiarity of certain events. These events included the configuration of the room in which a critical meeting took place, the parties’ physical location (“sitting on the floor”) and the actions of going through a list of dates, ticking off days when Mr Levison had worked. This illustrates the importance of different types of memory, here demonstrating how spatial and visual aspects of events can make them more memorable.
How We Helped
This case was acutely fact-sensitive. The success is testimony to the meticulous preparation of the legal team leading up to and including trial and highlights FSL’s expertise in seeing cases through from start to finish against significantly resourced opponents with resounding success.
Kit Sorrell, Partner at FS Litigation, said:
"When we presented the case it was essential that we were able to highlight the need for a holistic approach to evidence. It is so important to take into account all evidence, including witness statements and documents. We were pleased to be able to take this approach and help John, who has been a stalwart of his community, get the result that he deserved.”
The Outcome
The Judge listened for 3 days to witness evidence from those who had been present, as well as looking at all of the surrounding evidence. After a two-year legal battle, Mr Levison achieved victory.
In his judgment in favour of Mr Levison, HHJ Bever emphasised John’s honesty and good character. Conversely, the Judge had reservations about some of the evidence adduced on Medivet’s behalf.
John Levison said:
“Kit Sorrell and team guided me through this legal process, which was alien to me. Their experience in these cases was obvious. When faced with the strong arm of a multibillion-pound organisation, it was their Northern grit and meticulous attention to detail that helped me stand up to Medivet. Once in Court, it was reassuring to be represented by such a well-prepared and skilful legal team. Above all, they had faith in my honesty.’"