The claimant spread betting company sought payment of sums due for bets from the defendant who said they owed him money under the 2000 Act.
Held: Morgan J observed as to the interpretation of the contract: ‘Accordingly, in my judgment, the minimum content of a communication which is required for that communication to qualify as a margin call is that Spreadex asks the client to pay money, whether a sum is specified or not, and the words used in the relevant context reasonably convey to a reasonable recipient the fact that Spreadex is asking for margin call, as that phrase is understood in the Agreement.’
Judges:
Morgan J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 1136 (Ch), [2009] 1 BCLC 102
Links:
Statutes:
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 150
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Spreadex Ltd v Dr Vijay Ram Battu CA 11-Jul-2005
The appellant traded in financial indices through the respondent spread betting company. The company took two forms of security, an initial payment by way of security, and a sum covering any current trading positions. The trader made losses, and the . .
Cited by:
Cited – IG Index Plc v Leung-Cheun and Others QBD 17-Aug-2011
The claimants sought payment from the defendants under spread bets placed by them. The defendants counterclaimed saying that they had suffered greater losses after the claimants had failed as required to close out open bets.
Held: The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.270216