swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Agency - From: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich A G v Crossseas Shipping Ltd and Others [2000] 1 WLR 1135
2000
CA
Agency, Contract
The claimant creditor bank made changes to the guarantee executed by the guarantee without its approval and after it had been signed and duly executed, by inserting the details of a service agent. Held: The insertion did not work to alter the guarantor's liability, and had not been prejudicial to its legal rights and obligations and accordingly was not material. The guarantee remained enforceable. An alteration to the contract after signature did not invalidate it unless it was material in the sense of being "potentially prejudicial to the legal rights or obligations of the affected party".
1 Cites
1 Citers
Re W (Enduring Power of Attorney); 2000 - [2000] 1 All ER 175; [2002] MHLR 411; [2000] Ch 343; [2000] 3 WLR 45
Douglas King v T Tunnock Limited [2000] Eur LR 531; [2000] SLT 744; [2000] ScotCS 70; 2000 SC 424
2000
IHCS
Lord Caplan
European, Agency
The pursuer had been employed as a commercial agent by the defendant which carried on business as a baker. The pursuer sold only the defendant's cakes and biscuits. The defendant decided to close its bakery business. The claimant sought compensation under regulation 17(6) to be assessed by reference to the value of the agency at the date of termination rather than on the basis of any future economic loss. He argued that compensation should be assessed without regard to events occurring after the date of termination and that when assessing the amount of compensation to which he was entitled the court should follow the established practice of the French courts in awarding two years' gross commission. Held: The agent was entitled to receive compensation for the loss of his business. Even in France the two years' commission rule is only a benchmark and the court had to examine the particular circumstances of the case. Earning potential was an important factor in valuing an agency and there might be cases in which it would be necessary to adduce evidence of the valuation of agencies in the particular local market. There was no such evidence here and the court commented on the limited evidence before it as to the value of the business. Having regard to the duration and previous profitability of the agency the claimant would have expected to receive a capital sum equal to at least two years' earnings in order to give it up and held that an award of that amount would not be unreasonable.
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 - Council Directive 86/653 17
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
X v Y, Z sub nom In re E (Enduring power of attorney); ChD 18-Feb-2000 - [2000] EWHC Ch 144; [2001] Ch 364; [2000] 1 FLR 882; [2000] 3 All ER 1004; [2000] 3 WLR 1974
E, Re Enduring Power of Attorney; CoP 18-Feb-2000 - [2000] EWCOP 1561
Anglo Group Plc, Winther Brown and Co Ltd v Winter Brown and Co Ltd, BML (Office Computers) Ltd, Anglo Group Plc, BML (Office Computers) Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 127; (2000) 144 Sol Jo LB 197
8 Mar 2000
TCC
Toulmin QC J
Litigation Practice, Contract, Agency
Contract - Contract for provision of computer services - purchaser contract with finance company - duty of co-operation to be implied in computer contracts - practice - responsibilities of expert witnesses generally - whether computer company liable to purchaser - whether purchaser liable to finance company.
The parties disputed the delivery and quality of a computer system. The buyer complained of many defects and eventually sought to reject the system. Held: Anglo's claim succeeded. The court provided updated Ikarian Reefer guidelines for expert witnesses. The court criticised one expert witness for failing to keep separate his role as negotiator and witness. It is normally inappropriate to seek to combine the two.
The court gave Ikarian Reefer guidelines updated to comply with the CPR:
"1.An expert witness should at all stages in the procedure, on the basis of the evidence as he understands it, provide independent assistance to the court and the parties by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise. This applies as much to the initial meetings of experts as to evidence at trial. An expert witness should never assume the role of an advocate.
2. The expert's evidence should normally be confined to technical matters on which the court will be assisted by receiving an explanation, or to evidence of common professional practice. The expert witness should not give evidence or opinions as to what the expert himself would have done in similar circumstances or otherwise seek to usurp the role of the judge.
3.He should co-operate with the expert of the other party or parties in attempting to narrow the technical issues in dispute at the earliest possible stage of the procedure and to eliminate or place in context any peripheral issues. He should co-operate with the other expert(s) in attending without prejudice meetings as necessary and in seeking to find areas of agreement and to define precisely arrears of disagreement to be set out in the joint statement of experts ordered by the court.
4.The expert evidence presented to the court should be, and be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of the litigation.
5.An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion.
6.An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise.
7.Where an expert is of the opinion that his conclusions are based on inadequate factual information he should say so explicitly.
8.An expert should be ready to reconsider his opinion, and if appropriate, to change his mind when he has received new information or has considered the opinion of the other expert . He should do so at the earliest opportunity."
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 9
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Triffitt Nurseries and others v Salads Etcetera and others [2000] EWCA Civ 134
18 Apr 2000
CA
The Master Of The Rolls Mrs Justice Smith Lord Justice Robert Walker
Agency, Insolvency
[ Bailii ]
Secured Residential Funding plc v Douglas Goldberg Hendeles and Co (a Firm) Times, 26 April 2000; Gazette, 25 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 144
19 Apr 2000
CA
Agency, Land, Legal Professions
Two linked companies were in business from the same premises lending money on mortgage. A loan from one company was made but supported only by documentation in the name of the other. The error was noticed, but new documents not prepared until after completion. In possession proceedings, the lender had to show that the money had been advanced by its associate as its agent. The operative date was the date on which the mortgage advance was made, not on completion.
[ Bailii ]
MHC Consulting Services Ltd v Tansell; CA 19-Apr-2000 - Times, 19 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000
Fyffes Group Ltd and Others v Templeman and Others Times, 14 June 2000; Gazette, 22 June 2000; [2000] 2 Lloyds Rep 643
14 Jun 2000
QBD
Toulson J
Agency, Equity
A person who bribed an agent to award a contract was liable to account for profits secured by the bribery as was the agent he bribed, but unlike for the agent, the extent of his liability was limited to exclude profits which he would have earned in any event. The recompense in damages should not be allowed to lead to the unjust enrichment of the injured party.
1 Citers
Tamarind International Ltd and others v Eastern Natural Gas (Retail) Ltd and Another Times, 27 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000; [2000] EuLR 708; [2000] CLC 1397; [2000] EuLR 908
27 Jun 2000
QBD
Morison J
Agency, Commercial
Where self employed agents had been taken on to market the respondent's services, and those agencies were terminated, such activities were those of commercial agents within the Directive, and they were entitled to compensation. Whether he was a secondary agent or not was a question foreign to English law, and not to be gleaned other than through the Regulations and the facts. If the agents are not secondary, they are within the Regulations. Here the respondent would derive a long term benefit from their activities, and they were not secondary.
Morison J reviewed the genesis of the Directive and made reference to Law Commission Report No 84, 1977 which said: "The provisions of the Directive were clearly based upon the German Commercial Code and related to a special category of agent who acted for his principal 'who must be his standing client'. In German law the commercial agent is 'identifiable as a member of a particular social group with special social and economic needs'. Such an agent was a quasi employee requiring protection from exploitation".
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 No 3053
1 Citers
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Littlewoods Organisation Plc Times, 04 July 2000
4 Jul 2000
ChD
VAT, Agency
The enhanced commission paid to mail order catalogue agents for supplying services to the company and which was to be set off against goods purchased by the agents themselves from the mail order company were vatable. The commission earned represented in part a discount on the goods purchased, but in reality was also a consideration for the supply of the agents' services.
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
1 Cites
1 Citers
Barry v Davies (T/A Heathcote Ball and Co) and Others Times, 31 August 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 235
27 Jul 2000
CA
Contract, Consumer, Damages, Agency, Contract
The claimant sought damages from an auctioneer who had failed to accept his bid, and withdrawn the items from the sale. Held: In an auction without reserve the auctioneer was not entitled to withdraw an item on the basis that the highest or only bid was too low. To do so was to put himself in a position as if he was bidding for the seller, and that was not allowed save under the Act. The auctioneer himself was liable in damages to the disappointed bidder in a sum equivalent to the market value less the rejected bid.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 57(4)
[ Bailii ]
Amin v Norwich Union Life and Pensions Ltd and Others [2000] EWHC 1563 (Ch)
28 Jul 2000
ChD
Agency
Claim for commissions
[ Bailii ]
Michael Gerson (Leasing) Limited v Michael Wilkinson and State Securities Limited Times, 12 September 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 250; [2000] EWCA Civ 251; [2001] QB 514 CA
31 Jul 2000
CA
Contract, Financial Services, Agency
Where goods were subject to a financing arrangement involving a sale and leaseback with a finance company, the goods were to be treated as constructively delivered to the finance company on the sale. Delivery required a voluntary act by the person in actual possession, but that could be satisfied by an acknowledgement of the rights of the purchaser. Such assumptions are in accordance with modern sensible commercial practice. The mere request for an invoice was not of itself sufficient to establish that a contract was in place where delivery might be expected to take place only on payment.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 24 25
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Ingmar Gb Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc; ECJ 16-Nov-2000 - Times, 16 November 2000; C-381/98; [2000] ECR I-9305; [2000] EUECJ C-381/98; [2001] 1 CMLR 9; [2000] EUECJ C-381/98_O
Time Group Ltd v Panic Link Plc and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 417
17 Nov 2000
CA
Agency, Contract
[ Bailii ]
Standard Life Assurance Company (Incorporated Under Laws of Scotland By Act of Parliament) v Egan Lawson Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 293; [2001] 1 EGLR 27
21 Nov 2000
CA
Simon Brown LJ, Mummery LJ, Latham LJ
Agency, Contract
The defendant appealed against judgment in favour of his (buyer's) estate agent for his commission in finding the property for it. A previous offer was rejected by the seller, but a subsequent agent of the buyer obtained the acceptance of a further offer. Was the intriduction by the first agent the effective cause of the sale? Held: None of the cases indicate that it is legally possible, in the absence of an express or implied contract to that effect, for the court to apportion the agreed commission between the two agents on an equitable basis that each introduction was a contributory cause of the purchase by the person introduced. Neither side proposed that solution as a legally permissible (or even desirable) result in this case. It is a case of winners and losers, all or nothing. In this case however, the claimants had not been the effective introducers. It was the action of the second agent which was the effective cause of the purchase. The actual purchase was not the same transaction proposed by the first agents.
Mummery LJ observed that: "In the case of two estate agents appointed by the vendor . . The first in time factor (and the interest that the initial introduction generates) is relevant, it is neither determinative nor paramount in resolving the rival claims to commission. It is necessary to consider the causal link between the instructions and the ultimate transaction."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
