Cases Commercial Disputes
Judgment Date: 25 May 2005
By signing, without reading, terms and conditions relating to an investment that was fundamentally different to the investment product that had been orally explained to him, a company director had not shown that he was content to contract on those terms irrespective of any prior misrepresentation or that he was not induced by and did not rely on the misrepresentation in making the investment.
View case
Judgment Date: 23 May 2005
A claim for the return of a deposit paid to the local authority pursuant to an agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.106 amounted to seeking a modification or discharge of a planning obligation within the meaning of s.106, so that return of the deposit could only be claimed by using the statutory procedure set out in s.106A and not by claiming that the local authority had repudiated the agreement.
View case
Judgment Date: 19 May 2005
When considering the proper construction of a proviso in a waiver agreement the court had to construe the waiver agreement as a whole and against its factual background. In the circumstances the comparison the court was required to make between the loss which would be caused to the representee by a misrepresentation and the loss which would be caused to the representor by rescission pointed inevitably to a refusal of the remedy of rescission.
View case
Judgment Date: 17 May 2005
On the evidence, a claim in respect of the alleged non-performance of a written agreement had a real prospect of success and should proceed to trial. The court had jurisdiction over two of the defendants domiciled outside the English jurisdiction under Council Regulation 44/2001 Art.6(1) and therefore service of the claim form on them was valid. The court also assumed jurisdiction pursuant to CPR r.6.20 over two other defendants on the basis that the claimant had a good arguable case against them.
View case
Judgment Date: 20 Apr 2005
Where under the terms of the relevant agreements sponsorship monies were not "profits relating to or accruable from the event", the claimant had failed to establish a proprietary claim based on assignment.
View case
Judgment Date: 18 Apr 2005
The determination of a preliminary issue in relation to the proper construction of an agreement with regard to the release of funds out of a retention account established by an agreement for the purchase of the entire issued share capital of a company in order to meet any liabilities arising under the warranties or the tax covenant in the agreement.
View case
Judgment Date: 31 Jan 2005
There was no common law election in the instant case between two inconsistent rights. Nor was there any basis on equitable principles to hold that the equitable doctrine of election applied where the defendant vendors of shares merely put forward an inconsistent contention without any express reservation or statement that it was alternative to their previous position.
View case
Judgment Date: 08 Dec 2004
On the evidence, the chief executive of a racecourse management company had apparent or ostensible authority to sign an agreement with the claimant company granting it television picture rights, which was binding upon the racecourse owner.
View case
Judgment Date: 08 Oct 2004
An injunction restraining the defendants from denying that one or other of the claimants was their agent would not be granted where the claimants had failed to plead a cause of action justifying it.
View case
Judgment Date: 25 Jun 2004
There had been a legally binding agreement between the claimant and his former firm of solicitors to pay the claimant a monthly fixed sum for three years.
View case
Judgment Date: 16 Feb 2004
Two out of four parties to a contract could make a binding ad hoc agreement to refer a dispute between those two parties to a sole arbitrator despite the provisions of an arbitration clause in the contract.
View case
Judgment Date: 17 Dec 2003
A proviso to the rent review provisions in a lease did not create an independent obligation rendering the tenant liable for damages in case of breach.
View case
Judgment Date: 24 Oct 2003
The defendant was liable to remunerate estate agents for outstanding fees in accordance with the terms of an agency agreement, despite his allegation that he had not received a leaflet containing the agents' terms of business and although the property sale was ultimately concluded without the agents' assistance.
View case
Judgment Date: 04 Aug 2003
A claim for breach of an alleged sponsorship contract was dismissed as no binding agreement existed, contrary to the claimant's allegation that one of the defendant's employees had orally notified the claimant of a sponsorship deal.
View case
Judgment Date: 03 Apr 2003
Promise of payment by employer to pay subcontractor; Whether a guarantee within meaning of s4 Statute of Frauds; Whether employer estopped from relying on requirement of writing.
View case
Judgment Date: 06 Mar 2003
The claimant was not entitled to a declaration that the effect of a letter sent by it to the third defendant constituted an event of termination or gave rise to an event of termination under a joint venture agreement between the parties.
View case
Judgment Date: 27 Nov 2002
By a pre-emption agreement between the parties the defendant did not acquire an equitable interest in land unless the claimant accepted a purchase offer by it. In the circumstances the cautions lodged by the defendant should be vacated.
View case
Judgment Date: 23 Oct 2002
In making an order for specific performance on an application for summary judgment, the judge had erred in finding that there was no evidence of impossibility to perform.
View case
Judgment Date: 05 Jul 2002
The claimant's action against the defendant for unreasonable withholding of consent to an under-letting was dimissed.
View case
Judgment Date: 11 Jun 2002
Counsel's opinion complied with the provisions of a share purchase agreement. The opinion could only be considered at face value for those purposes and it was not open to the defendant to go behind it and challenge the legal or factual basis on which it was given.
View case