Category Archives: Agency

Re MRJ JT and KT (Reconsideration of Order); CoP 10-Apr-2014

The court had made an order transferring responsibility for MRJ’s affairs from the appointed attorney to the local authority. The order had been made on the papers, and the court now heard an application for it to be reconsidered.
Held: The orders made were confirmed. The court recognised that the interference in a person’s choice of attorney was an interference in their right to private and family life under article 8 of the Convention, and must only be allowed where fully warranted. The evidence now before the court established even more clearly the mismanagement of the patient’s affairs by the agent.

Court: CoP
Date: 10-Apr-2014
Judges: Lush LJ
Statutes: Mental Capacity Act 2005, Court of Protection Rules 2007, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC B15 (COP),
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Health, Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Re Harcourt; CoP 2013

Unless warranted under Article 8.2, the revocation by the Court of Protection an LPA, which a donor executed when they had capacity and in which they chose a family member to be their attorney, would be a violation of their Article 8.1 right to respect for their private and family life

Court: CoP
Date: 01-Jan-2013
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 8.2, Mental Capacity Act 2005
References: [2013] COPLR 69,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Health

Jabir -v- HA Jordan & Co; CA 16-Jun-2011

The parties disputed the appropriate method of valuing a pearl lost while in the custody of the defendant.

Court: CA
Date: 16-Jun-2011
Judges: Longmore, Munby LJJ, Sir Henry Brooke
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWCA Civ 816,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Contract

Sorrell -v- Finch; HL 1976

A purchaser had paid a deposit to the estate agent, but sought its return before contracts had been exchanged.
Held: In the absence of any express extension of authority to a estate agent or auctioneer to receive a pre-contract deposit, the potential purchaser is, at all times until the contract is entered into, the only person with any claim or right to the deposit. If the agent chooses to forward such deposit, then he must bear the loss. The vendor at that stage has no liability to repay the deposit. After completion, the agent holds any deposit for the vendor subject only to his right to deduct his commission and expenses. In a dispute between the vendor and purchaser, the agent should interplead.

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1976
References: [1976] 2 All ER 371, [1977] AC 728, [1976] 2 WLR 833, 120 Sol Jo 353

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency

King -v- Hutton; CA 1900

‘The most compelling indicator for or against a trusteeship of an agent’s receipts is the nature of the account agreed to be kept by the agent with his principal. If, after each individual transaction or group of related transactions he effects for his principal, he is to pay over the proceeds in his hands – minus any commission payable – then he will ordinarily be a trustee. But where an agent is effecting both sales and purchases for his principal, or is discharging liabilities for his principal out of monies received, and he keeps a running account with periodic settlement dates at which he pays over the balance of account (if any), he will, ordinarily, be a debtor only – the debtor-only conclusion being reinforced if there are present in the accounts (1) set offs, other than for commission, or (2) interest charges on credits and debits’.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1900
References: [1900] 2 QB 504 CA, [1900] 83 LT 68
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Trusts

Andrew -v- Ramsay & Co; 1903

The defendant had been employed as agent by the plaintiff to sell property belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant achieved this and was paid his commission, but had also taken a secret commission from the buyer. The plaintiff sought repayment of the commission.
Held: The action succeeded. Where an agent takes a commission secret from his principal, the principal may refuse to pay or recover any commission under the main agency contract. The action for and recovery of the secret commission had not operated as a ratification of the sale.

Date: 01-Jan-1903
References: [1903] 72 LJKB 865,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency

FHR European Ventures Llp and Others -v- Mankarious and Others; ChD 5-Sep-2011

The claimants sought return of what it said were secret commissions earned by the defendants when working as their agents, and the defendants countrclaimed saying that the commissions had been known to the claimants and that additional sums were due. The claimants had employed the defendants as their agents in the acquisition of an interest in a very substantial hotel. The defendants had aslo taken a commission of 10m euros from the sellers.

Court: ChD
Date: 05-Sep-2011
Judges: Simon J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWHC 2308 (Ch),
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency

Lyell -v- Kennedy; HL 1889

The true owner may recover money which was rightfully his from a person to whom the money in question had been wrongly paid by the collector of the money. A fiduciary is one who has undertaken, whether on request or without request, of his own motion to act on behalf of another in circumstances in which equity will not allow him ‘to enter into engagements in which he has, or can have, a personal interest conflicting, or which possibly may conflict, with the interests of those whom he is bound to protect’.

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1889
References: (1889) 14 App Cas 437,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Equity

Great Atlantic Insurance Co -v- Home Insurance Co; 1981

Lloyd J said: ‘if the principal has held out his agent as having a certain authority, it hardly lies in his mouth to blame the agent for acting in breach of a secret limitation placed on that authority’.

Date: 01-Jan-1981
Judges: Lloyd J
References: [1981] 2 Ll R 219,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency

Chaudry -v- Prabhakar; CA 1988

Where a person agreed to find a suitable car. A car was bought but was unroadworthy.
Held: An agent, even a volunteer, owed a duty of care appropriate for those circumstances. The measurement was objective, not subjective. The defendant knew he was to be relied upon, and the circumstances (a crumpled bonnet) suggested that further enquiry was required. The relationship may be material. If they are friends, the court may find that the arrangement was purely social, and according to the circumstances, did not give rise to a duty of care.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1988
Judges: Stuart Smith LJ
References: [1989] 1 WLR 29, [1988] 3 All ER 718
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Negligence