New writ in William Hill dispute: Court interpretation sought over section of agreement with Brent Walker
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.GRAND Metropolitan has fired another legal salvo in the long-running dispute over its pounds 685m sale of the William Hill and Mecca betting shop businesses to Brent Walker.
A writ has been issued by Grand Met, the international food and drinks group, seeking rectification of the sale agreement on 5 September 1989. It is also claiming costs.
Rectification, a legal term, means Grand Met is not disputing what the contract says but is querying the interpretation of certain terms.
Neither Brent, the debt-laden leisure company, nor Grand Met would specify which element of the contract was being disputed. Grand Met said: 'It has become clear that Grand Met and Brent Walker disagree about the interpretation of one aspect of the original agreement. Because Grand Met believes Brent Walker's interpretation is contrary to the agreement . . . it is applying to have the agreement rectified so as to put the point beyond argument.'
Brent said it would vigorously resist the application, which relates only to certain areas of the claim.
The two companies have been at loggerheads over William Hill since September 1990, when Brent refused to honour a pounds 50m deferred payment due on the deal.
Brent is still refusing to pay even though the High Court ruled in Grand Met's favour in February 1991. Its defiance is based on its claim against Grand Met for overstatement of William Hill's profits for the year to 30 September 1989.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments