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: 2001 To: 2001
This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
In Re W (Enduring Power of Attorney); CA 9-Jan-2001 - Gazette, 25 January 2001; Times, 09 January 2001; [2000] Ch 343
J Jarvis and Sons Ltd v Castle Wharf Developments Ltd, Gleeds Management Services Ltd, Franklin Ellis Architects Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 19; [2001] Lloyds Rep PN 308; (2001) 17 Const LJ 430; [2001] NPC 15
19 Jan 2001
CA
Peter Gibson, Arden LJJ, Collins J
Construction, Professional Negligence, Agency
[ Bailii ]
Barret Mckenzie and Co Ltd v Escada (UK) Ltd; QBD 1-Feb-2001 - Times, 15 May 2001; [2001] EWHC QB 462; [2001] EuLR 567; [2001] All ER (D) 78
Wincanton Ltd v P and O Trans European Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 227
15 Feb 2001
CA
Dyson LJ
Agency, Contract
Dyson LJ discussed the responsibilities of a bailee: "The critical question is always whether the parties agreed or intended (expressly or impliedly) that the obligations of the intermediate bailee should continue after he has parted with possession to a third party"
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
J Jarvis and Sons Ltd v Castle Wharf Developments Ltd and Others Times, 28 February 2001
28 Feb 2001
CA
Agency, Professional Negligence
An independent professional agent can become liable to someone entering into a contract with his principal for a negligent misstatement which induced him to tender for the contract. The issue was first whether the prospective contractor would rely upon the misstatement. Liability will vary according to the circumstances.
G and S Properties v Donald Francis and Another [2001] ScotCS 148
13 Jun 2001
SCS
Lord Coulsfield
Scotland, Agency
The pursuers were contracted to sell a property with sole selling rights. The contract was terminable on two weeks notice. Notice was given, and another company engaged. A buyer confused the two agents and obtained details from the pursuer's office, and later bought. The pursuer sought payment for the sale. The Sherriff had declined to allow a claim where a purchaser was introduced outside the sole selling agency period, interpreting the clauses contra preferentem. The agency appealed refusal of its claim. Held: The appeal failed. The case of Harwood concerned a contract with the same wording and was important for this case, but what was meant by an 'introduction' in the Harwood case wa settled by a concession which did not apply in this case, and may be unsound. The contra preferentem rule applies "where the terms of the contract are, in effect, dictated by one party and can only be accepted or rejected by the other, the contract should, where the meaning is doubtful, be read in the sense least advantageous to the party who drafted it. " The terms here were not drafted by the pursuers, but derived from consumer protection regulations.
Estate Agents (Provision of Information) Regulations 1991 - Estate Agents Act 1979 18
1 Cites
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Clarke (Executor of the Will of Francis Bacon, Deceased) v Marlborough Fine Art (London) Ltd and Another Times, 05 July 2001
5 Jul 2001
ChD
Patten J
Agency, Trusts, Limitation
Francis Bacon sold his paintings through the defendant agents for many years. The original contractual arrangement grew into a fiduciary one. The claimants asserted that the defendants were in breach of that fiduciary duty, the defendants asserted that the relationship remained contractual, and that it was now time barred. Held: There may be a true constructive trust which would not be time barred, rather than a remedial constructive trust. The test was whether the trustee was a true trustee, whether of a constructive or an express trust. Nor was it clear that a court of equity would have time barred a claim in undue influence.
Limitation Act 1980 36(1)(f)
1 Citers
Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Inc; QBD 31-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWHC QB 3
David Frape v Emreco International Limited (2) [2001] ScotHC 74; [2001] ScotCS 196
2 Aug 2001
SCS
Lord McEwan
Scotland, Agency, Commercial, European
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Smith v Henniker-Major and Co [2001] EWHC 484 (Ch)
17 Oct 2001
ChD
Company, Agency
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Littlewoods Organisation plc Times, 07 November 2001; Gazette, 29 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1542
26 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lord Justice Sedley
VAT, Agency
Agents of the taxpayer received commission on sales. They could take it in cash, or at an enhanced rate on goods purchased. How was the tax to be calculated on the goods sold to the agent? The right to take goods at the enhanced rate arose from a combination of her appointment as agent, and payments made in respect of the primary supply. There was no direct link between the right to take goods at the enhanced rate, and a service she had provided, and there was no basis for treating the services as a non-monetary element in the consideration for the supply of the secondary goods, and no basis for allowing for a non-monetary element under article 11 when ascertaining the taxable amount to be attributed to the supply. The commission in goods had to be treated as a price discount.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Hardie Polymers Ltd v Polymerland Ltd [2001] ScotCS 243
31 Oct 2001
SCS
Lord Macfadyen
Scotland, European, Agency, Damages, Commercial
1 Cites
[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
City Television v Conference and Training Office Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1770
16 Nov 2001
CA
Sedley, Arden LJJ
Agency
Bailment claim appeal.
[ Bailii ]
TICC Limited v Cosco (UK) Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1862
5 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Kay And Lord Justice Rix
Contract, Agency
The claimants sought to have incorporated by notice into a contract of bill of lading, the terms of a freight surcharge. Notice had been given to the shipping agents in Hong Kong only. The shippers claimed the surcharge under the 1992 Act, saying the defendants inherited the notice from their shipping agents. The first court held that the parties were parties to the contract along with their agents. Held: The company had not done enough to give notice to incorporate the surcharge within the contract. Appeal dismissed.
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 3
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]