Bristol County Court orders £240 refund for café menus not shown to have been supplied

Bristol County Court has ordered Callum Reed to refund Nadia Ellis £240 for café menus that the evidence did not show were supplied or made available. Ellis sought repayment of the full amount she had paid, and the court granted her claim in full.

The dispute turned on more than whether the menus were ready at a particular hour on Friday. Ellis said she needed them for her café's weekend reopening and had never received them; Reed argued that the evidence left the collection deadline and later events uncertain.

A bank record established the £240 payment, marked for menus. A Friday WhatsApp exchange showed that Ellis asked to collect at 2:15 pm and Reed replied that the menus were not quite ready.

The judge distinguished Ellis's reference to collection “as agreed” from proof that Reed had promised that precise time. His reply did not expressly confirm a 2:15 pm deadline, so the court made no such finding.

Reed's job sheet said “ready Friday”, supporting Friday as the intended completion day. But it gave no time and did not establish that the menus were available when Ellis asked, later that day or afterward.

The court treated Ellis's consistent account that she had not received the menus with caution because her answers were relayed through counsel rather than independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony. Reed could not identify a later collection offer or delivery, and the record contained no evidence of either.

On the record as a whole, the judge found that the menus had not been shown to have been supplied or made available. Repayment of the amount paid was proportionate; no additional damages, interest or costs were awarded.

Ellis said Friday was the agreed collection day and that she still had not received the menus. Her counsel argued that the job sheet supported a Friday arrangement and sought only the return of her payment.

Reed asked the court to deny or reduce the refund. He argued that the message did not prove a 2:15 pm deadline and that the evidence did not establish the full picture after that exchange. He accepted that he could point to no later record showing the menus were available or that another collection time had been offered.

Ellis said she ordered the menus a few days before Friday, but could not recall the exact date. The judge rejected counsel's calculation that her estimate established a four-day preparation period and did not rely on a specific lead time.

The judgment also made no finding that Reed acted dishonestly. Although Ellis's counsel raised a rule concerning business partners' loyalty, the court said the record did not establish a partnership, self-dealing or grounds for a separate loyalty finding.