Tag: Agency

Agro Foreign Trade and Agency: ECJ 16 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Self-employed commercial agents – Directive 86/653/EEC – Coordination of the laws of the Member States – Belgian transposition measure – Commercial agency contract – Principal established in Belgium and agent established in Turkey – Choice of Belgian law clause – Applicable law – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Compatibility

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:129, [2017] EUECJ C-507/15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 86/653/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial, Agency

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575249

Miles and Another v The Public Guardian: ChD 1 Jul 2015

The court was asked whether certain provisions in two lasting powers of attorney were effective.
Nugee J said: ‘It does seem to me that it is right that the Act should be construed in a way which gives as much flexibility to donors to set out how they wish their affairs to be dealt with as possible, the Act being intended to give autonomy to those who are in a position where they can foresee that they may in the future lack capacity . .’

Judges:

Nugee J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2960 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Capacity Act 2005 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Agency

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573627

Tamarind International Ltd and others v Eastern Natural Gas (Retail) Ltd and Another: QBD 27 Jun 2000

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’.

Morison J
Times 27-Jun-2000, Gazette 29-Jun-2000, [2000] EuLR 708, [2000] CLC 1397
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 No 3053
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Inc QBD 31-Jul-2001
The applicants sought damages as commercial agents following the termination of their exclusive agency for the sale of the respondents goods in the UK. The defendants claimed the contract was governed exclusively by Californian law. The European . .
Cited – Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd and Another QBD 3-Oct-2011
The claimants sought compensation under the 1993 Rules. The defendants denied that the claimants were agents within the rules, since they also acted as agents for other furniture makers.
Held: Whether a party is a commercial agent within the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Commercial

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.89699

The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple v Lloyds Bank plc and Another: QBD 8 Feb 1999

Where a cheque marked ‘a/c payee only’ had been stolen, and an English clearing bank collected it as agent for a foreign bank not acting for the payee, that bank was liable for the misrepresentation involved in the presentation. Where a bank asks its English agent for collection to collect English cheques crossed ‘a/c payee’ it is impliedly warranting that its customer is entitled to the proceeds. The court drew a distinction between an agent’s breach of duty as against his principal and an agent’s breach of duty to a third party. Where an agent for a collecting bank was negligent towards a third party payee, he would be indemnified by a collecting bank for any loss caused to a third party as a consequence of performing the collecting bank’s request. This was not so where the loss arose from the agent’s negligence in the actual performance of the collecting bank’s request.
Rix J: ‘When, however, the cheque emerges from that multitude and is referred by the clerical staff to management, albeit only as a result of an inquiry after fate, it seems to me that different considerations come into play. The cheque is no longer a mere item following a course in a factory-like process. It no longer becomes impracticable to give it individual attention, or the attention of management. It is referred for just such individual attention, even if the cause of referral is something collateral.’

Rix J
Times 08-Feb-1999, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 193
Cheques Act 1992
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Linklaters (A Firm) v HSBC Bank Plc and and Banco Popular Espanol ComC 22-May-2003
A stolen cheque was endorsed in blank, and paid through an account opened for that purpose. It had been crossed ‘A/C PAYEE ONLY’ The cheques was paid in, and the money authorised for payment by HSBC. The banks had to apportion responsibility. The . .
Cited – Architects of Wine Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc CA 20-Mar-2007
The bank appealed summary judgement against it for conversion of cheques. The cheques had been obtained by a fraud.
Held: The court considered the question of neglience under section 4: ‘The section 4 qualified duty does not require an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Agency

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.89822

Wells v Devani: CA 15 Nov 2016

Claim for agent’s commission on sale of flats. The defendant developer had entered into a sole agency agreement with W. Unsold flats were eventually sold to an Housing association on an introduction by a third party agent., the claimant, who now sought commission. The parties disputed whether a contract had been created.
Held: The developer’s appeal succeeded (Arden LJ Dissenting). A court might imply terms into a concluded contract, but not where the very existence of the contract remained at issue. It was not permissible first to assume a contract in order then to decide its terms. The terms of the event triggering an obligation to pay were a precondition to the finding that a contract had been concluded.

Arden, Lewison, McCombe LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1106, [2016] WLR(D) 604, [2017] 2 WLR 1391, [2017] QB 959
Bailii, WLRD
Estate Agents Act 1979
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Wells v Devani SC 13-Feb-2019
Mr W was selling apartments in a block of flats. Mr D, an estate agent, sought commission. W argued that D had not had signed his terms, and that therefore no contract existed. The court considered whether a contract had come into being when a major . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Contract

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.571238

Re OL: CoP 24 Jun 2015

Application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney (‘LPA’) for property and financial affairs because the attorneys have used their power carelessly and irresponsibly.

Lush J
[2015] EWCOP 41
Bailii
England and Wales

Agency

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549435

Re CJ: CoP 25 Mar 2015

Reconsideration of a decision made on the papers: (a) revoking the respondent’s appointment as his partner’s deputy for property and affairs; and (b) inviting a panel deputy to apply to be appointed as deputy in his place.

Lush SJ
[2015] EWCOP 21
Bailii
England and Wales

Agency, Health

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544724

Aboualsaud v Aboukhater and Another: QBD 19 Sep 2007

Claim for commission – introduction of purchaser – denial of verbal contract.

Nelson J
[2007] EWHC 2122 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – 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 counterclaimed saying that the commissions had been known to the claimants and that additional sums were . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.261912

Verderame v Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc: CA 2 Apr 1992

The insurance brokers, acting to arrange insurance for a small private limited company did not owe a duty in tort to the directors of that company personally. Where an action was brought in a tort and in breach of contract, damages could not be awarded on the tort where they were not available in contract.

Balcombe LJ
[1992] BCLC 793, Times 02-Apr-1992
England and Wales
Citing:
Followed – Watts and Co v Morrow CA 30-Jul-1991
The plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his . .

Cited by:
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co (a Firm) CA 12-Nov-1998
The claimant had previously issued a claim against the defendant solicitors through his company. He now sought to pursue a claim in his own name. It was resisted as an abuse of process, and on the basis that no personal duty of care was owed to the . .
Cited – Hamilton Jones v David and Snape (a Firm) ChD 19-Dec-2003
The claimant was represented by the respondent firm of solicitors in an action for custody of her children. Through their negligence the children had been removed from the country. She sought damages for the distress of losing her children.
Agency, Insurance, Company, Contract, Negligence, Damages

Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.181818

Hosking v Marathon Asset Management Llp: ChD 5 Oct 2016

Loss of agent’s share for breach within LLP

The court was asked whether the principle that a fiduciary (in particular, an agent) who acts in breach of his fiduciary duties can lose his right to remuneration, is capable of applying to profit share of a partner in a partnership or a member of a limited liability partnership.
Held: The profit share of a partner or LLP member can potentially be subject to forfeiture. A partner or LLP member is an agent the mere fact that someone is a partner or LLP member as well as an agent should not preclude the operation of a principle which affects agents more generally.

Newey J
[2016] EWHC 2418 (Ch), [2016] WLR(D) 501, [2017] Ch 157, [2017] 2 WLR 746,
Bailii, WLRD
Arbitration Act 1996, Partnership Act 1890, Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, Limited Liability Partnership Regulations 2001
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Andrews v Ramsay 1903
The plaintiff asked the defendant estate agents to find a purchaser for his property at a price of pounds 2,500 and if one such was found the agents’ fee would be pounds 50. A purchaser, one Clutterbuck, at pounds 2,100 was found. He paid the agents . .
Cited – Keppel v Wheeler CA 1927
The plaintiff engaged the defendant estate agents to sell a property, instructing them to market it at 6,500 pounds but that he would accept 6,000 pounds. The plaintiff accepted an offer of 6,150 pounds ‘subject to contract’. Before exchange, . .
Cited – Imageview Management Ltd v Jack CA 13-Feb-2009
The appellant company acted for the respondent footballer in placing him with a football club. The respondent said that he had also taken a payment from the club, nominally for arranging a work permit. The respondent said this was improper. The . .
Cited – Bank of Ireland and Another v Jaffery and Another ChD 23-May-2012
Claim for breach of fiduciary duty brought by the Bank against one of its erstwhile senior executives.
Held: Vos J concluded that forfeiture of agency fees would be disproportionate and inequitable for breach of an employment or agency . .
Cited – Dunne v English CA 1874
A partner had made a secret profit from the sale of partnership property.
Held: The other partner sought and obtained relief ‘substantially in accordance with the first and second paragraphs of the prayer of the bill’, which had sought ‘a . .
Cited – Helmore v Smith 1886
The relationship between partners is of a fiduciary nature.
Bacon V-C said: ‘If fiduciary relation means anything I cannot conceive a stronger case of fiduciary relation than that which exists between partners. Their mutual confidence is the . .
Cited – Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood (a Firm) CA 22-May-2002
The firm of solicitors acted for both parties in a conveyancing transaction, in a situation when they were permitted to do so. The firm had previously acted for one party in a case where he had been convicted of a crime. The other party said the . .
Cited – Avrahami and Others v Biran and Others ChD 25-Jun-2013
Management fees were to be forfeited for breach of a fiduciary duty by an agent. . .
Cited – Premium Real Estate Ltd v Stevens 6-Mar-2009
Supreme Court of New Zealand – The court was asked as to the forfeiture of remuneration by an agent for breach of fiduciary duty.
Held: In relation to remoteness of damage, it was observed that the question of foreseeability in common law . .
Cited – F and C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy and Another (No 2) ChD 14-Jul-2011
The court was asked as to the fiduciary obligations owed by members of the board of a limited liability company.
Held: Sales J said that: ‘there is nothing in the Act to qualify the usual fiduciary obligations which an agent owes his principal . .
Cited – Erikson v Carr 1945
New South Wales – an individual was alleged to have disentitled himself to commission as a result of a breach of duty.
Held: Though the legal rights of the parties would depend on the jury’s conclusions as to, among other things, ‘whether it . .
Cited – Olson v Gullo 1994
(Court of Appeal for Ontario) A Mr Olson and a Mr Gullo had formed a partnership to develop a tract of land. Mr Gullo nevertheless bought and sold part of the land for his own account at a substantial profit which he planned to pocket. The trial . .
Cited – Zahid v M Young Legal Associates Ltd and others CA 16-May-2006
Is it possible for a person to be a partner in a firm, and thus liable jointly with the other partners to creditors of the firm, even if his agreement with them is not that he should be entitled to participate in its profits but that he should be . .
Cited – Zahid v M Young Legal Associates Ltd and others CA 16-May-2006
Is it possible for a person to be a partner in a firm, and thus liable jointly with the other partners to creditors of the firm, even if his agreement with them is not that he should be entitled to participate in its profits but that he should be . .
Cited – Reinhard v Ondra Llp and Others ChD 14-Jan-2015
The parties disputed whether the claimant had become a member of the defendant limited liability partnership.
Warren J said: ‘the ‘share’ of a member [of an LLP] is the totality of the contractual or statutory rights and obligations of that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Equity, Company

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.569924

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack: CA 13 Feb 2009

The appellant company acted for the respondent footballer in placing him with a football club. The respondent said that he had also taken a payment from the club, nominally for arranging a work permit. The respondent said this was improper. The agent now appealed.
Held: The side deal was and act within the agency and should have been disclosed. This was not an honest breach of contract. This was a secret profit and a breach of fiduciary duty because of the conflict of interest. Not only was the secret payment to be paid across, but no further agency fees were payable.
Jacob LJ said: ‘The law imposes on agents high standards. Footballers’ agents are not exempt from these. An agent’s own personal interests come entirely second to the interest of his client. If you undertake to act for a man you must act 100%, body and soul, for him. You must act as if you were him. You must not allow your own interest to get in the way without telling him. An undisclosed but realistic possibility of a conflict of interest is a breach of your duty of good faith to your client.’ and ‘I accept [counsel for the agent’s] submission that there can be cases of harmless collaterality. And that there can be cases where there is just an honest breach of contract such as Keppel’s case [1927] 1 KB 577. But this is simply not such a case. This is a case of a secret profit obtained because Mr Berry/Imageview was Mr Jack’s agent. And there was a breach of a fiduciary duty because of a real conflict of interest. That in itself would be enough, but there is more: the profit was not only greater than the work done but was related to the very contract which was being negotiated for Mr Jack. Once a conflict of interest is shown, as Atkin LJ said in the last passage quoted, the right to remuneration goes’.
and ‘The policy reason runs as follows. We are here concerned not with merely damages such as those for a tort or breach of contract but with what the remedy should be when the agent has betrayed the trust reposed in him – notions of equity and conscience are brought into play. Necessarily such a betrayal may not come to light. If all the agent has to pay if and when he is found out are damages the temptation to betray the trust reposed in him is all the greater. So the strict rule is there as a real deterrent to betrayal. As Scrutton LJ said in Rhodes’s case 29 Com Cas 19, 28, ‘The more that principle is enforced, the better for the honesty of commercial transactions”.

Mummery LJ, Dyson LJ, Jacob LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 63, [2009] WLR (D) 56, [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 921, [2009] 2 All ER 666, [2009] 1 BCLC 724, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 436, [2009] Bus LR 1034
Bailii, Times, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Salomons v Pender 21-Apr-1865
When a person who purports to act as an agent is not in a position to say to his principal, ‘I have been acting as your agent, and I have done my duty by you,’ he is not entitled to recover any commission from that principal.
Bramwell B said: . .
Cited – Hippisley v Knee Bros CA 1903
The defendant auctioneers were employed by the plaintiff to sell some goods. The payment was to be percentage commission with a minimum of andpound;20, certain fixed amounts and ‘all out of pocket’ expenses, particularly advertising. The sale . .
Cited – Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co v Ansell CA 1888
An employer having dismissed an employee (its managing director) later learnt of the employee’s fraud.
Held: The employer was allowed to rely upon that fraud to justify the dismissal. Where an agent is in wrongful repudiation of his contract . .
Cited – Andrews v Ramsay 1903
The plaintiff asked the defendant estate agents to find a purchaser for his property at a price of pounds 2,500 and if one such was found the agents’ fee would be pounds 50. A purchaser, one Clutterbuck, at pounds 2,100 was found. He paid the agents . .
Cited – Nitedals Taenstikfabrik v Bruster 1906
Commission was allowed for an agent despite an alleged breach of duty. Neville J discussed Andrews v Ramsay saying its doctrine: ‘does not apply to the case of an agency where the transactions in question are separable’ . .
Cited – Stubbs v Slater 1910
A deposit by guarantors who had agreed ‘to assign to [the Bank] their certificates of shares in [PPL] by way of deposit’, together with endorsed transfers in blank, would create an equitable mortgage with an implied power of sale. Neville J . .
Cited – Rhodes v Macalister CA 1923
The plaintiff agent acted to find a seller of mineral rights for the defendant principal. He told his principal that the properties could be purchased for from andpound;8,000 to andpound;10,000. If the agent could find a seller at below . .
Cited – Keppel v Wheeler CA 1927
The plaintiff engaged the defendant estate agents to sell a property, instructing them to market it at 6,500 pounds but that he would accept 6,000 pounds. The plaintiff accepted an offer of 6,150 pounds ‘subject to contract’. Before exchange, . .
Cited – O’Sullivan v Management Agency and Music Limited CA 1985
The claimant alleged undue influence. As a young singer he had entered into a management agreement with the defendant which he said were prejudicial and unfair. The defendant argued that the ‘doctrine of restitutio in integrum applied only to the . .
Cited – Dalkia Utilities Services Plc v Celtech International Ltd ComC 27-Jan-2006
The Court was asked to decide (i) which, if either, of the two parties to a 15 year agreement lawfully terminated it; (ii) whether, if one of them did so, it was by giving notice under a contractual termination clause or by way of acceptance of the . .
Cited – Phipps v Boardman HL 3-Nov-1966
A trustee has a duty to exploit any available opportunity for the trust. ‘Rules of equity have to be applied to such a great diversity of circumstances that they can be stated only in the most general terms and applied with particular attention to . .
Cited – Robinson Scammel v Ansell 1985
. .
Cited – Kelly v Cooper and Another PC 25-Nov-1992
There was a dispute between a client and an estate agent in Bermuda. The client sued the estate agent for damages for breach of duty in failing to disclose material information to him and for putting himself in a position where his duty and his . .
Cited – Warman International Ltd v Dwyer 1995
(High Court of Australia) A fiduciary diverted a business in breach of his fiduciary duty.
Held: ‘The outcome in cases of this kind will depend upon a number of factors. They include the nature of the property, the relevant powers and . .
Cited – Murad and Another v Al Saraj and Another CA 29-Jul-2005
An account of profits is available without proof of loss, and the onus is upon the defaulting party to show that profits are not ones for which he should account . .

Cited by:
Cited – Avrahami and Others v Biran and Others ChD 25-Jun-2013
Management fees were to be forfeited for breach of a fiduciary duty by an agent. . .
Cited – Hosking v Marathon Asset Management Llp ChD 5-Oct-2016
Loss of agent’s share for breach within LLP
The court was asked whether the principle that a fiduciary (in particular, an agent) who acts in breach of his fiduciary duties can lose his right to remuneration, is capable of applying to profit share of a partner in a partnership or a member of a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Equity

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.282631

FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Cedar Capital Partners Llc: SC 16 Jul 2014

Approprietary remedy against Fraudulent Agent

The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or commission.
Held: The appeal failed. An agent receiving a secret commission in breach of his fiduciary duties to his principal, held that commission or bribe in trust for that principal, and a proprietary remedy was available in respect of it.
There had been conflicting decisions and much academic discussion over the years as to the availability of the remedy requested. Where an agent acquires a benefit which came to his notice as a result of his fiduciary position, or pursuant to an opportunity which results from his fiduciary position, the general equitable rule (‘the Rule’) is that he is to be treated as having acquired the benefit on behalf of his principal, so it is beneficially owned by the principal. How did the rule apply where the bribe was taken by an agent in breach of his fiduciary duty.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge, Lord Collins
[2014] UKSC 45, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 471, [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 425, [2014] WTLR 1135, [2014] 4 All ER 79, [2015] 1 AC 250, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 617, [2014] 3 WLR 535, [2014] WLR(D) 317, [2014] 2 BCLC 145, [2015] 1 P and CR DG1, UKSC 2013/0049
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Video
England and Wales
Citing:
At ChD – 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 counterclaimed saying that the commissions had been known to the claimants and that additional sums were . .
Appeal from – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Mankarious and Others CA 29-Jan-2013
The defendants had taken a secret commission when acting for the claimant. They had succeeded in their action and had an order in their favour, but had been refused a proprietary remedy for the sum received.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and a . .
Cited – Keech v Sandford ChD 1726
Trustee’s Renewed Lease also Within Trust
A landlord refused to renew a lease to a trustee for the benefit of a minor. The trustee then took a new lease for his own benefit. The new lease had not formed part of the original trust property; the minor could not have acquired the new lease . .
Cited – Carter, Esq v Sir William Henry Palmer, Bart 17-Mar-1842
The employment of counsel as confidential legal adviser disables him from purchasing for his own benefit charges on his client’s etates, without his permission ; and although the confidential employment ceases, the disability continues as long as . .
Cited – Bowes v The City Of Toronto PC 15-Feb-1858
The mayor of a city who bought discounted debentures issued by the city was in the same position as an agent vis-a-vis the city, and was to be treated as holding the debentures on trust for the city. . .
Cited – Dunne v English CA 1874
A partner had made a secret profit from the sale of partnership property.
Held: The other partner sought and obtained relief ‘substantially in accordance with the first and second paragraphs of the prayer of the bill’, which had sought ‘a . .
Cited – Bagnall v Carlton CA 1877
Agents for a prospective company who made secret profits out of a contract made by the company were held to be ‘trustees for the company’ of those profits . .
Cited – Cook v Deeks and Hinds PC 23-Feb-1916
Company Directors not free to prefer Own Interests
Deeks and Hinds were the directors of a construction company. They negotiated a lucrative construction contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway. During the negotiations, they decided to enter into the contract personally, on their own behalves, . .
Cited – Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver HL 20-Feb-1942
Directors Liability for Actions Ouside the Company
Regal negotiated for the purchase of two cinemas in Hastings. There were five directors on the board, including Mr Gulliver, the chairman. Regal incorporated a subsidiary, Hastings Amalgamated Cinemas Ltd, with a share capital of 5,000 pounds. There . .
Cited – Phipps v Boardman ChD 1964
Agents of certain trustees had purchased shares, in circumstances where they only had that opportunity because they were agents.
Held: The shares were held beneficially for the trust. . .
Cited – Mothew (T/a Stapley and Co) v Bristol and West Building Society CA 24-Jul-1996
The solicitor, acting in a land purchase transaction for his lay client and the plaintiff, had unwittingly misled the claimant by telling the claimant that the purchasers were providing the balance of the purchase price themselves without recourse . .
Cited – Bhullar and others v Bhullar and Another CA 31-Mar-2003
The claimants were 50% shareholders in a property investment company and sought relief alleging prejudicial conduct of the company’s affairs. After a falling out, two directors purchased property adjacent to a company property but in their own . .
Cited – Barker v Harrison 16-Apr-1846
A vendor’s agent had secretly negotiated a sub-sale of part of the property from the purchaser at an advantageous price.
Held: that asset was held on trust for the vendor. . .
Cited – Fawcett v Whitehouse 21-Dec-1829
The defendant, intending to enter into a partnership with the plaintiffs, negotiated for the grant by a landlord of a lease to the partnership. The landlord paid the defendant andpound;12,000 for persuading the partnership to accept the lease.
Cited – Sugden v Crossland 18-Feb-1856
A sum of money paid to a trustee to persuade him to retire in favour of the payee was to be ‘treated as a part of the trust fund’. . .
Cited – In re Morvah Consols Tin Mining Co, McKay’s Case CA 1875
A company bought a mine, and shares in the vendor were promised to the company’s secretary.
Held: The shares were held by him for the company beneficially. . .
Cited – In re Western of Canada Oil, Lands and Works Co, Carling, Hespeler, and Walsh’s Cases CA 1875
Shares which had been transferred by a person to individuals to induce them to become directors of a company and to agree that the company would buy land from the person, were held by the individuals on trust for the company. . .
Cited – In re Caerphilly Colliery Co, Pearson’s Case CA 1877
A company director, had received shares from the promoters and then acted for the company in its purchase of a colliery from the promoters.
Held: The shares were held on trust for the company. . .
Cited – Nant-y-glo and Blaina Ironworks Co v Grave 1878
Shares in a company had been given by a promoter to the defendant to induce him to become a director.
Held: They belonged to the company. . .
Cited – Eden v Ridsdale Railway Lamp and Lighting Co Ltd CA 1889
The company was held to be entitled as against a director to shares which he had secretly received from a person with whom the company was negotiating. . .
Cited – Martin v Lowry (HM Inspector of Taxes) KBD 15-Jun-1925
The taxpayer had other business, but purchased a substantial quantity of cloth and resold it. He said this was not by way of trade. The Revenue said that he had used all the standard trade practices, and it was taxable as such.
Held: The . .
Cited – Martin v Lowry (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 1926
The appellant purchased the entire stock of government surplus aircraft linen. He had another main business and had intended to resell it immediately. When that failed to promise a profit he set out to sell and sold the material over several months . .
Cited – Williams v Barton 1927
A trustee, who recommended that his co-trustees use stockbrokers who gave him a commission, held the commission on trust for the trust. . .
Cited – Tyrrell v The Bank Of London And Sir J v Shelley And Others HL 27-Feb-1862
A solicitor retained to act for a company in the course of formation secretly arranged to benefit from his prospective client’s anticipated acquisition of a building called the ‘Hall of Commerce’ by obtaining from the owner a 50% beneficial interest . .
Cited – Metropolitan Bank v Heiron CA 1880
A claim brought by a company against a director was time-barred: the claim was to recover a bribe paid by a third party to induce the director to influence the company to negotiate a favourable settlement with the third party. The bank failed in its . .
Cited – Lister and Co v Stubbs CA 1890
It was alleged by the plaintiffs that their foreman had received secret commissions which he had invested in land and other investments. They sought interlocutory relief to prevent him dealing with the land and requiring him to bring the other . .
Cited – In re North Australian Territory Co, Archer’s case CA 1892
A bribe had been paid to an agent. . .
Cited – Diplock And Others v Blackburn 19-Jul-1811
If the master of a ship in a foreign port, from the state of the exchange, receives a premum for a bill drawn upon England on account of the ship, this belongs to his owner, although there may have been a usage for masters of shps to apprapriate . .
Cited – The Attorney General of Hong Kong v Reid and Reid And Marc Molloy Co PC 1-Nov-1993
(New Zealand) The Board considered the power to recover property owned by a public official found to have taken bribes.
Held: The bribes received by the policeman were held on trust for his principal, and so they could be traced into . .
Cited – Kak Loui Chan v Zacharia 1984
(High Court of Australia) The fundamental rule that obliged fiduciaries to account for personal benefit or gain had two separate themes: ‘The variations between more precise formulations of the principle governing the liability to account are . .
Cited – Fyffes Group Ltd v Templeman and others ComC 22-May-2000
The claimants alleged that over a five year period from 1992 to 1996 their employee Mr Simon Templeman, the first defendant, took bribes amounting to over US $1.4 million from or with the connivance of the second to seventh defendants. The essential . .
Cited – Daraydan Holdings Limited, Cairn Estates Limited and Others v Solland International Limited and Others ChD 26-Mar-2004
The court was asked whether Lister and Co v Stubbs 45 ChD 1, a decision of the Court of Appeal, was binding on him or whether he could apply the Privy Council’s decision in Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid
Held: On the facts of the case . .
Cited – Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd and Others CA 29-Mar-2011
The appellant challenged a decision that it was not entitled to a proprietary interest in the proceeds of sale of some shares which had been acquired with the proceeds of a breach of trust. Specifically, the claims gave rise to (i) an issue as to . .
Cited – Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) 21-Feb-2012
Federal Court of Australia
CORPORATIONS – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 9 – ‘director’ – ‘officer’ – de facto director – no single test for determining whether a person is such – assuming or performing the functions of a director of the . .

Cited by:
Cited – AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler and Co Solicitors SC 5-Nov-2014
Bank not to recover more than its losses
The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to . .
Cited – Bailey and Another v Angove’s Pty Ltd SC 27-Jul-2016
The defendant had agreed to act as the claimant’s agent and distributor of the claimant’s wines in the UK. It acted both as agent and also bought wines on its own account. When the defendant went into litigation the parties disputed the right of the . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Aquila Advisory Ltd SC 3-Nov-2021
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Equity, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.534405

In re J (Enduring Power of Attorney): ChD 12 Mar 2009

(Court of Protection) The donor executed a document purporting to appoint his wife to be his attorney, with an alternative. The document was based on a published precedent. The Public Guardian (PG) thought this provision of an alternative invalid.
Held: The Act required the use of the form set out, but then allowed variations to it which did not contradict any provision of the Act, and did allow successive attorneyships. The PG said that paragraph 20 required any multiple appointment to be either joint or joint and several. Such appointments were not in fact prohibited, and would give rise to no greater complexity than might arise through the use of multiple and successive deeds which were clearly allowed. The Act should be construed so as to allow people to make the arrangements they felt suitable and without creating technical traps for them. The power was valid.

Lewison J
[2009] EWHC 436 (Ch)
Bailii
Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985, Enduring Powers of Attorney (Prescribed Form) Regulations 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz HL 29-Oct-2008
The lease had been assigned by the claimant to the defendant and on again to a tenant who became insolvent. The landlord had recovered sums said to be due from the claimant who now sought an indemnity from the defendant. The defendant said that the . .
Cited – X v Y, Z sub nom In re E (Enduring power of attorney) ChD 18-Feb-2000
The application was an appeal against an order registering an enduring power of attorney. The appeal from Master Lush was by way of rehearing. The donor had executed two powers. The second was invalid, and the donees of the first power sought to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Health

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.317986

Millar Son and Co v Radford: CA 1903

For an estate agent to recover his commission, it was ‘necessary’ to show that the agent’s introduction was an ‘efficient’ (namely effective) cause in bringing about the transaction.

Sir Richard Henn Collins MR
(1903) 19 TLR 575
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The County Homesearch Company (Thames and Chilterns) Ltd v Cowham CA 31-Jan-2008
The defendants contracted to pay estate agents to find them a house. They completed the purchase of a property mentioned to them three times by the agent, but now appealed from a finding that they were obliged to pay his commission. The judge found . .
Cited – Foxtons Ltd v Pelkey Bicknell and Another CA 23-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed against a finding that she was liable to pay her estate agent, appointed as sole agent, on the sale of her property. The eventual purchasers had visited but rejected the property. The agency was later terminated, and the . .
Cited – Charania v Harbour Estates Ltd CA 27-Oct-2009
The defendant appealed against the award of the estate agent’s fees, acting under a sole agency agreement. The agreement had been terminated. A buyer who had seen the property first under the agency later returned and negotiated a purchase.
Agency, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.264092

The County Homesearch Company (Thames and Chilterns) Ltd v Cowham: CA 31 Jan 2008

The defendants contracted to pay estate agents to find them a house. They completed the purchase of a property mentioned to them three times by the agent, but now appealed from a finding that they were obliged to pay his commission. The judge found that it was not implied into the contract that the commission would be payable only if the agent was an effective contributor to the transaction.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The main reason for implying the term would be to avoid the client having to pay two commissions, but that was already precluded, and express terms were inconsistent with the term sought to be implied, and ‘The fact that it may be arguable whether a term should be implied . . does not mean that there is a doubt about the meaning of a written term’.

Longmore LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 26, [2008] 1 EGLR 24, [2008] 1 WLR 909, [2008] NPC 10, [2008] 15 EG 178
Bailii
Estate Agents Act 1979, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (1999 SI No. 2083) 7(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The Moorcock CA 1889
Unless restricted by something else, an employer ought to find work to enable a workman to perform his part of the bargain, namely, to do his work. A term will be implied into a contract only to the extent required to give the contract efficacy: ‘if . .
Cited – Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd CA 1939
The court warned against the over-ready application of any principle to justify the implication of terms into a contract. McKinnon LJ set out his ‘officious bystander’ test: ‘If I may quote from an essay which I wrote some years ago, I then said: . .
Cited – Brian Cooper and Co v Fairview Estates (Investments) Ltd CA 13-Mar-1987
A substantial property developer sought a tenant for its office block and agreed with his selling agent to pay ‘a full scale letting fee . . should you introduce a tenant by whom you are unable to be retained and with whom we have not been in . .
Cited – Toulmin v Millar HL 1887
The agent claimed a second commission when his principal, who had already paid a commission for the procuring of a tenant, was asked to pay a second commission on the purchase of the property by the tenant at a later date.
Held: Where there . .
Cited – Doyle v Mount Kidston Mining and Exploration Property Ltd 1984
(Queensland) McPherson J considered an estate agent’s contract: ‘it would have been quite artificial to suppose that the parties intended that the agent should earn his commission simply by finding an individual who, independently of any further . .
Cited – Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd HL 1940
Where a party enters into an arrangement which can only take effect by the continuance of an existing state of circumstances, there is an implied engagement on his part that he will do nothing of his own motion to put an end to that state of . .
Cited – Millar Son and Co v Radford CA 1903
For an estate agent to recover his commission, it was ‘necessary’ to show that the agent’s introduction was an ‘efficient’ (namely effective) cause in bringing about the transaction. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and seven Others ComC 24-Apr-2008
The Office sought a declaration that the respondent and other banks were subject to the provisions of the Regulations in their imposition of bank charges to customer accounts, and in particular as to the imposition of penalties or charges for the . .
Cited – Foxtons Ltd v Pelkey Bicknell and Another CA 23-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed against a finding that she was liable to pay her estate agent, appointed as sole agent, on the sale of her property. The eventual purchasers had visited but rejected the property. The agency was later terminated, and the . .
Cited – Glentree Estates Ltd and Others v Favermead Ltd ChD 20-May-2010
The claimant estate agents claimed commission on property sales. The defendant said that the agreement to pay commission had been waived.
Held: The sale triggered the commission. However the later agreement did work to vary the original . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Agency, Consumer

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.264035

Aluminium Industrie Vaassen B V v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd: CA 16 Jan 1976

The seller sold aluminium to the defendant, but included a clause under which they retained title in the materials sold, even if mixed in with manufactured goods, until they had been paid for the metal. The defendants appealed a finding that the receivers held the proceeds of sale of the manufactured goods on trust for the plaintiffs.
Held: The appeal failed. The intention of the clause was to secure for as long as possible payment of the purchase price of the aluminium. There had to be read into the contract a duty on the defendant to act under the fiduciary relationship of principal and agent, bailor and bailee, as was contemplated in the clause. The plaintiffs could trace the proceeds of the sub-sales, and recover them.

Megaw, Roskill and Goff L.JJ
[1976] 1 WLR 676
lip
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Hallett’s Estate; Knatchbull v Hallett CA 1880
Where a trustee of a policy used money received from others to make payment of premiums on an insurance policy, they would be entitled to a lien on the policy. Where an asset was acquired exclusively with trust money, the beneficiary could either . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Company, Equity, Agency

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.174733

Director of Legal Aid Casework and Others v Briggs: CA 31 Jul 2017

Orse In re Briggs (Incapacitated Person)
Sir Brian Leveson P, King , Burnett LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 1169, [2017] WLR(D) 535, (2017) 158 BMLR 88, [2018] 2 All ER 990, [2018] 2 WLR 152, [2017] COPLR 370, [2017] CP Rep 45, , [2018] Fam 63
Bailii, WLRD
Mental Capacity Act 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Briggs v Briggs and Others (EWCOP 48) CoP 24-Nov-2016
The Court considered whether the disagreement about whether it was in the best interests of Mr B for him to be given clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, was one which could be determined . .

Cited by:
Cited – An NHS Trust and Others v Y and Another SC 30-Jul-2018
The court was asked whether a court order must always be obtained before clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, which is keeping alive a person with a prolonged disorder of consciousness, can be withdrawn, or whether, in some circumstances, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2021; Ref: scu.591676

Tongue v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals and Another: ChD 12 Oct 2017

The respondent society had removed cattle from the claimant’s farm after findings against the farmer under the 1911 Act. The parties now disputed liability for the costs incurred.
Newey J
[2017] EWHC 2508 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 668
Bailii, WLRD
Protection of Animals Act 1911
England and Wales

Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.597474

Siu Yin Kwan and Another v Eastern Insurance Co Ltd: PC 16 Dec 1993

Insurers are liable to undisclosed principals on an indemnity policy, provided it was made with the range of their authority. The claim arose out of the death of two seamen on their employers’ vessel but the employers were not named in the relevant policy.
Lord Lloyd said: ‘There are two reasons why their Lordships prefer the decision in Mark Rowlands . . In the first place the words ‘event or events’ in section 2, while apt to describe the loss of the vessel are hardly apt to describe . . liability arising under the common law, as a consequence of the loss of the vessel. Secondly, section 2 must take colour from the short title and preamble to Section 1. By no stretch of the imagination could indemnity insurance be described as a ‘mischievous kind of gaming’. Their Lordships are entitled to give section 2 a meaning which corresponds with the obvious legislative intent.’
Lord Lloyd of Berwick said: ‘For present purposes the law can be summarised shortly. (1) An undisclosed principal may sue and be sued on a contract made by an agent on his behalf, acting within the scope of his actual authority. (2) In entering into the contract, the agent must intend to act on the principal’s behalf. (3) The agent of an undisclosed principal may also sue and be sued on the contract. (4) Any defence which the third party may have against the agent is available against his principal. (5) The terms of the contract may, expressly or by implication, exclude the principal’s right to sue, and his liability to be sued. The contact itself, or the circumstances surrounding the contract, may show that the agent is the true and only principal.’
Lord Lloyd
Gazette 02-Feb-1994, Times 16-Dec-1993, [1994] 2 AC 199, [1994] 1 All ER 213, [1994] 2 WLR 370
Insurance Act 1774 2
Commonwealth
Citing:
Applied – Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .

Cited by:
Cited – Feasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey ComC 17-May-2002
The fact that there was more than one insurance policy in place for the same interest would not preclude a claim under one of them. A mutual underwriting group insured members against personal injury and so forth through ‘lineslip’ policies. The . .
Cited – Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa v Playboy Club London Ltd and Others SC 26-Jul-2018
The Playboy casino required a reference for a customer, but asked for this through a third party. The bank was not aware of the agency but gave a good reference for a customer who had never deposited any money with them and nor to whom it had issued . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.89287

Temple Legal Protection Ltd v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd: ComC 23 Apr 2008

Beatson J
[2008] EWHC 843 (Comm), [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 643
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Temple Legal Protection Ltd v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd CA 6-Apr-2009
‘In the present case the binder gives Temple certain valuable rights, including a right in Section 27.1 to ‘retain’ commission out of premiums, but they do not include any rights of a security or proprietary nature to which the authority can be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.267064

Moran Yacht and Ship Inc v Pisarev and Another: CA 11 Feb 2016

[2016] EWCA Civ 317, [2017] 1 All ER (Comm) 62, [2016] 1 Lloyds Rep 625
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd SC 16-May-2018
The parties disputed whether a contract (licence to occupy an office) had been varied by an oral agreement, where the terms prohibited such.
Held: The ‘no oral variation’ clause applied. Such clauses were in common commercial use and served a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 July 2021; Ref: scu.616602

Andrews v Ramsay: 1903

The plaintiff asked the defendant estate agents to find a purchaser for his property at a price of pounds 2,500 and if one such was found the agents’ fee would be pounds 50. A purchaser, one Clutterbuck, at pounds 2,100 was found. He paid the agents pounds 100 by way of deposit. The agents paid the principal pounds 50 and, with the principal’s consent, retained pounds 50 as their commission. But it then transpired that the agents had had a side deal with Clutterbuck whereby he paid them pounds 20. In the first action the principal claimed and recovered the pounds 20 as a secret profit made by the agent in breach his duty of good faith. In the second action the principal claimed the return of the pounds 50.
Held: He succeeded – even though he had had the benefit of the agent’s services.
Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘It is said that the defendants ought not to be called upon to hand over the andpound;50 to the plaintiff because the plaintiff has had the benefit of their services. The principle of Salomons v. Pender (1865) 3 HandC 639 seems to me to govern the case, and it is, in my opinion, amply sufficient to do so. In that case it was held that an agent who was himself interested in a contract to purchase property of his principal was not entitled to any commission from the principal. The principle there laid down is that, when a person who purports to act as an agent is not in a position to say to his principal, ‘I have been acting as your agent, and I have done my duty by you,’ he is not entitled to recover any commission from that principal . . It seems to me that this case is only an instance of an agent who has acted improperly being unable to recover his commission from his principal. It is impossible to say what the result might have been if the agent in this case had acted honestly. It is clear that the purchaser was willing to give andpound;20 more than the price which the plaintiff received, and it may well be that he would have given more than that. It is impossible to gauge in any way what the plaintiff has lost by the improper conduct of the defendants. I think, therefore, that the interest of the agents here was adverse to that of the principal. A principal is entitled to have an honest agent, and it is only the honest agent who is entitled to any commission. In my opinion, if an agent directly or indirectly colludes with the other side, and so acts in opposition to the interest of his principal, he is not entitled to any commission. That is, I think, supported both by authority and on principle; but if, as is suggested, there is no authority directly bearing on the question, I think that the sooner such an authority is made the better.’
Wills J said: ‘The andpound;50 in question was paid by the purchaser to the defendants as agents for the plaintiff as part of the andpound;100 deposit on the purchase, and the defendants were allowed by the plaintiff to retain andpound;50 in the belief that they had earned that sum as commission. If the money had all been paid over, and the defendants had had to sue the plaintiff for commission, it seems to me perfectly clear that they could not recover it. They would have no chance whatever of succeeding in such an action, and I think that they ought not to stand in any better position because the plaintiff, believing that they had acted properly, had allowed them to retain the andpound;50. The case ought to be the same whether the commission has already been paid or whether the agent has to sue for it.’
Lord Alverstone CJ, Wills J
[1903] 2 KB 635
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Salomons v Pender 21-Apr-1865
When a person who purports to act as an agent is not in a position to say to his principal, ‘I have been acting as your agent, and I have done my duty by you,’ he is not entitled to recover any commission from that principal.
Bramwell B said: . .

Cited by:
Cited – Imageview Management Ltd v Jack CA 13-Feb-2009
The appellant company acted for the respondent footballer in placing him with a football club. The respondent said that he had also taken a payment from the club, nominally for arranging a work permit. The respondent said this was improper. The . .
Cited – Nitedals Taenstikfabrik v Bruster 1906
Commission was allowed for an agent despite an alleged breach of duty. Neville J discussed Andrews v Ramsay saying its doctrine: ‘does not apply to the case of an agency where the transactions in question are separable’ . .
Cited – Hosking v Marathon Asset Management Llp ChD 5-Oct-2016
Loss of agent’s share for breach within LLP
The court was asked whether the principle that a fiduciary (in particular, an agent) who acts in breach of his fiduciary duties can lose his right to remuneration, is capable of applying to profit share of a partner in a partnership or a member of a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.282635

Industries and General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis: 1949

When arranging with the plaintiff company to obtain a loan for the defendant V stipulated that he should be paid half the procuration fee which the defendant would be charged for the company’s services. The company knew that V was to receive from the defendant a share of the profits on the resale of property to be purchased with the money lent, and that he was acting as agent for the defendant, but they had no dishonest intention to cause him to persuade the defendant to accept and the rate of commission demanded or to urge the defendant to act disadvantageously to his own interest. Neither V nor the company informed the defendant of the payment to V.
Held: for the purposes of the civil law a bribe meant nothing more than the payment of a secret commission, and proof of a corrupt motive on the part of the payer was unnecessary; once it was established that one party to a contract that made a secret payment to the agent of the other party the law would presume that he had acted corruptly, that the agent had been influenced by the payment to the detriment of his principal, and that the principal had suffered damage at least to the amount of the bribe; in the present case the payment by the plaintiffs to V constituted a bribe and it’s amount was recoverable by the defendant from the plaintiffs as damages or money had and received.
The court discussed difficulties in defining what is a bribe, Slade J said: ‘Sometimes the words ‘secret commission’ are used, sometimes ‘surreptitious payment’, and sometimes ‘bribe’. For the purposes of the civil law a bribe means the payment of a secret commission, which only means (i) that the person making the payment makes it to the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing; (ii) that he makes it to that person knowing that that person is acting as the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing; and (iii) that he fails to disclose to the other person with whom he is dealing that he has made that payment to the person whom he know to be the other person’s agent. Those three are the only elements necessary to constitute the payment of a secret commission or bribe for civil purposes.’ and ‘Yes, but earlier the learned judge has said that if a gift be made to a confidential agent with a view to inducing him, it is a bribe, and, therefore, in using the later language and referring to the bribes the learned judge is in effect saying: ‘I am using these later presumptions in cases where a bribe has been established and I have already defined a bribe as being only something which has been established as being paid with a certain motive.’ That, of course, would tear up the whole of the learned judge’s observation because he says lower down that the courts will not receive evidence as to what is the motive of the person making the payment. The motive will be conclusively inferred against him.’
References: [1949] 2 All ER 573, 93 Sol Jo 577
Judges: Slade J
This case cites:

  • Explained – Hovenden and Sons v Millhoff 1900 ([1900] 83 LT 41)
    Romer LJ said: ‘The courts of law in this country have always strongly condemned and, when they could, punished the bribing of agents, and have taken a strong view as to what constitutes a bribe. I believe the mercantile community as a whole . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (‘The Ocean Frost’) CA 1985 ([1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1, [1985] 1 WLR 640)
    In establishing that money was paid as an improper inducement or bribe, proof of corruptness or a corrupt motive was unnecessary.
    When a court looks at a decision of a judge at first instance, the court stressed the need to look at the . .
  • Cited – Tesco Stores Limited v Pook, Pook, Universal Projects (UK) Limited ChD 14-Apr-2003 (, [2003] EWHC 823 (Ch), [2004] IRLR 618)
    A trustee in breach of his duty has a duty to disclose that breach. It was alleged that the defendants, including a director of the claimant, had submitted false invoices to the claimants, and purchased property with the resulting profits.

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.194862

Gaussen And Others v W Morton And E Morton; 7 May 1830

References: [1830] EngR 564, (1830) 10 B & C 731, (1830) 109 ER 622
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: A. being indebted to B, in order to discharge the debt executed to B a power of attorney, authorising him to sell certain lands belonging to him, A.: Held, that this, being an authority coupled with an interest could not be revoked.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Bailey and Another v Angove’s Pty Ltd SC (Bailii, [2016] UKSC 47, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2014/0106, SC, SC Summary, SC Summ Vid, [2016] WLR(D) 455, WLRD, [2016] 1 WLR 3179)
    The court was asked two questions: ‘The first is: in what circumstances will the law treat the authority of an agent as irrevocable. The other is whether the receipt of money at a time when the recipient knows that imminent insolvency will prevent . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 31-Aug-16
Ref: 321444

Smart And Another v Sandars And Others; 6 Jul 1846

References: [1846] EngR 865, (1846) 3 CB 380, (1846) 136 ER 152
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: The mere relation of principal and factor confers, ordinarily, an authourity to sell at such times and for such prices as the factor may, in the exercise of his discretion, think best for his employer: but, if he receive the goods subject to any special instructions, he is bound to obey them. The authority, whether general or special, is revocable. Quaere, whether the factor’s authority to sell can be revoked after he has made advances upon the credit of the goods consigned to him, his authority then being coupled with an interest? In assumpsit, the declaration stated that the plaintiffs had consigned wheat to the defendants, who were corn factors, for sale on account of the plaintiffs ; that the defendants then promised the plaintiffs to obey and observe the lawful orders and directions of the plaintiffs to be given by them to the defendants in regard to the sale and disposal of the wheat, and that, although the plaintiffs ordered the defendants not to sell below a certain price, and although the same was a lawful order and direction in that behalf, yet the defendants, not regarding their promise, sold at a less price. Plea, that, after the delivery of the wheat to the defendants, they became and were under advances to the plaintiffs in respect thereof ; that they gave the plaintiffs notice that they required to be repaid such advances, and that in default they should sell the wheat and repay themselves; and that, although a reasonable time had elapsed, the plaintiffs did not repay them such advances ; whereupon the defendants, for the purpose of reimbursing themselves, sold the wheat for the best prices that could then be obtained for the same, &c. Held, that the plea was bad in substance, there being nothing in the transaction disclosed upon the record, from which it could be inferred that it was part of the contract that at any time the wheat should be forfeited, or the defendant’s authority to sell enlarged, so as to enable them to sell for repayment of advances, without reference to its being for the interest of the principals to sell at that particular time, and for that price.
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Smart & another v Sandars & Others CCP ((1848) 5 CB 895, [1848] EngR 499, Commonlii, (1848) 136 ER 1132)
    A factor to whom goods have been consigned generally for sale, and who has subsequently made advances to his principal on the credit of the goods, has no right to sell them, contrary to the orders of his principal, on the latter neglecting, on . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 31-Aug-16
Ref: 302760

JC Houghton and Co v Northard, Lowe and Wills: HL 1928

References: [1928] AC 1
Ratio:the court was asked whether the knowledge of the directors of the latter company should be attributed to it, with the effect that the latter company could and should be treated as estopped from denying that it had consented to a particular arrangement with a third party company. However, the arrangement was one that was against the company’s interests and for the benefit of the third party company which the directors also controlled and which was in financial difficulties.
Held: The law does not make the unreal assumption that agents will reveal to their principals the fraud which they are comitting on them.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Fassihim, Liddiardrams, International Ltd, Isograph Ltd -v- Item Software (UK) Ltd CA ([2004] EWCA Civ 1244, Times 21-Oct-04, Bailii, [2004] BCC 994, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 17, [2005] ICR 450, [2005] 2 BCLC 91, [2004] IRLR 928)
    The first defendant (F) had been employed by a company involved in a distribution agreement. He had sought to set up a competing arrangement whilst a director of the claimant, and diverted a contract to his new company.
    Held: A company . .
  • Cited – Jetivia Sa and Another -v- Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC (Bailii, [2015] UKSC 23, [2015] WLR(D) 182, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2013/0206, SC Summary, SC, [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 61, [2015] 1 BCLC 443, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 281, [2015] BVC 20, [2015] 2 WLR 1168, [2015] BCC 343, [2015] 2 All ER 1083)
    The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 25-Jun-16
Ref: 215866

Holland v Russell; 13 Jun 1861

References: [1861] EngR 728, (1861) 1 B & S 424, (1861) 121 ER 773
Links: Commonlii
Ratio:Insurance. Suppression of material fact. Principal and agent. Money had and received. A, as agent for a foreign owner, entered into a policy of insurance on a ship in the usual form. At the time of effecting the insurance, A was in possession of a letter from the captain, informing him that the ship had received injury, which fact he, without fraudulent intention to deceive, omitted to disclose to the underwriters. The ship waa lost, and B, one of the underwriters paid to A, his amount of the insurance ; but, having subsequently become acquainted with the above circumstance, brought an action for money had and received against him to recover it back. A., before he was aware of B.’s intention to dispute the policy, and acting bona fide throughout, transmitted to his principal the money he had received from the various underwriters; with the exception of a certain amount for which he had allowed the principal credit iri a settled account, and of another which, with the autbority of the principal, he had expended in a suit brought by him on behalf of the principal against C, another underwriter, on the policy :
Held: (In accordance with the decision in Russell v. Thornton, 4 H. & N. 788, affirmed on error, 6 Id. 140), that, in consequence of the concealment from the underwriters of the fact stated in the captain’s letter, the policy was voidable at the election of the underwriters. 2. That A. being only an agent, of which B. was aware, and having, without notice of B’s intention to repudiate the contract, paid over to his principal the amount received from the underwriters, B. was not entitled to recover back from A. his amount of the insurance. 3. That there was no difference in this respect between the money actually paid over by A. to his principal, and the moneys which had either been allowed in account between them or expended in the suit agaitist C, 4. Quaere, whether B. would have been entitled to recover, if he had not known that A. was acting merely as agent?
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Portman Building Society -v- Hamlyn Taylor Neck (a Firm) CA ([1998] 4 All ER 202, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 686)
    The mortgage advance had been against an express requirement that the client use the property as his private residence. After the client defaulted, the appellant lender discovered that the solicitors acting for themselves and the lay client had . .
  • See Also – Holland -v- Russell ([1863] EngR 546, Commonlii, (1863) 4 B & S 14, (1863) 122 ER 365)
    . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17-Jun-16
Ref: 284489

Salomons v Pender; 21 Apr 1865

References: [1865] EngR 365, (1865) 3 H & C 639, (1865) 159 ER 682
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Bramwell B
When a person who purports to act as an agent is not in a position to say to his principal, ‘I have been acting as your agent, and I have done my duty by you,’ he is not entitled to recover any commission from that principal.
Bramwell B said: ‘It is true that . . the defendant has had the benefit (if it be one) of the plaintiff’s services. But the defendant is in a position to say, ‘What you have done has been done as a volunteer, and does not come within the line of your duties as agent.” And in the same case Martin B. quoted the passage from Story on Agency, where it is said: ‘In this connection, also, it seems proper to state another rule, in regard to the duties of agents, which is of general application, and that is, that, in matters touching the agency, agents cannot act so as to bind their principals, where they have an adverse interest in themselves. This rule is founded upon the plain and obvious consideration, that the principal bargains, in the employment, for the exercise of the disinterested skill, diligence, and zeal of the agent, for his own exclusive benefit. It is a confidence necessarily reposed in the agent, that he will act with a sole regard to the interests of his principal, as far as he lawfully may; and even if impartiality could possibly be presumed on the part of an agent, where his own interests were concerned, that is not what the principal bargains for; and in many cases, it is the very last thing which would advance his interests. The seller of an estate must be presumed to be desirous of obtaining as high a price as can fairly be obtained therefor; and the purchaser must equally be presumed to desire to buy it for as low a price as he may.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Imageview Management Ltd -v- Jack CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 63, Times, [2009] WLR (D) 56, WLRD, [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 921, [2009] 2 All ER 666, [2009] 1 BCLC 724, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 436, [2009] Bus LR 1034)
    The appellant company acted for the respondent footballer in placing him with a football club. The respondent said that he had also taken a payment from the club, nominally for arranging a work permit. The respondent said this was improper. The . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 16-Dec-15 Ref: 281277

Barker v Harrison; 16 Apr 1846

References: [1846] EngR 533, (1846) 2 Coll 546, (1846) 63 ER 854
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Sir James Knight-Bruce V-C
A vendor’s agent had secretly negotiated a sub-sale of part of the property from the purchaser at an advantageous price.
Held: that asset was held on trust for the vendor.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others -v- Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 45, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 471, [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 425, [2014] WTLR 1135, [2014] 4 All ER 79, [2015] 1 AC 250, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 617, [2014] 3 WLR 535, [2014] WLR(D) 317, [2014] 2 BCLC 145, [2015] 1 P &CR DG1, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2013/0049, SC, SC Summary, SC Video)
    The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .

Carter, Esq v Sir William Henry Palmer, Bart; 17 Mar 1842

References: [1842] EngR 397, (1841,1842) 8 Cl & Fin 657, (1842) 8 ER 256
Links: Commonlii
The employment of counsel as confidential legal adviser disables him from purchasing for his own benefit charges on his client’s etates, without his permission ; and although the confidential employment ceases, the disability continues as long as the reasons on which it is founded continue to operate.
C, a barrister, who had been for several years confidential and advising couunsel to P, and had, by reason of that relation, acquired an intimate knowledge of his property and liabilities, and was particularly consulted as to a compromise of securities given by P for a debt which C considered not to be recoverable for the full amount, purchased these securities for less than their nominal amount, without notice to P after ceasing to be his counsel.
Held: that C’s purchase, while the compromise proposed by P was feasible, was in trust for P ; and that C was entitled only to the sum he had paid, with interest according to the course of the Court.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others -v- Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 45, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 471, [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 425, [2014] WTLR 1135, [2014] 4 All ER 79, [2015] 1 AC 250, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 617, [2014] 3 WLR 535, [2014] WLR(D) 317, [2014] 2 BCLC 145, [2015] 1 P &CR DG1, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2013/0049, SC, SC Summary, SC Video)
    The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .

Railton v Mathews and Leonard and Another; 14 Jun 1844

References: [1844] EngR 683, (1844) 10 Cl & Fin 934, (1844) 8 ER 993
Links: Commonlii
A party became surety in a bond for the fidelity of a commission agent to his employers. After some time the employers discovered irregularities in the agent’s accounts, and put the bond in suit. The surety then instituted a suit to avoid the ‘bond, on the ground of concealment by the employers of material circumstances affecting the agent’s credit prior to the date of the bond, and which, if communicated to the surety, would have prevented him from undertaking the obligation. On the trial of an issue whether the surety was induced to sign the bond by undue Concealment or deception on the part of the employers, the presiding Judge directed the jury, that the concealment, to be undue, must be wilful and intentional, with a view to the advantages the employers were thereby to gain : Held by the Lords (reversing the judgment of the Court of Session) that the direction was wrong in point of law. Mere non-communication of circumstances affecting the situation of the parties, material for the surety to be acquainted with, and within the knowledge of the person obtaining a surety bond, is undue concealment, though not wilful or intentional, or with a view to any advantage tor himself.

Grove And Another, Assignees of Liotard, A Bankrupt, v Dubois; 31 Jan 1786

References: [1786] EngR 42, (1786) 1 TR 112, (1786) 99 ER 1002
Links: Commonlii
A commission del credere is an absolute engagement to the principal from the broker, and makes him liable in the first instance. A broker with such a commission may set-off, under the general issue, a loss upon a policy happening before a bankruptcy, to an action by the assignees of the bankrupt, for premiums upon various policies under-written by him, and for which he had debited the broker : but such a loss carinot be proved under a riotice of set-off.

Clarke v Tipping; 18 Apr 1846

References: [1846] EngR 548, (1846) 9 Beav 284, (1846) 50 ER 352
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Wigram VC
The Defendant had bribed the Plaintiff’s agent to make extracts of false entries from the books of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not move for an injunction on the Defendant’s answer; but, on the cause coming on for hearing, it appeared that Clarke had filed another bill in the Rolls Court, and had obtained in that suit an inspection of those books; and therefore the bill was dismissed. But the principle that an agent could not be allowed to communicate the contents of his employer’s books to another person, and that that person could not publish the information so improperly obtained, was directly admitted by the Vice-Chancellor. A person guilty of bribery takes the knowledge he obtains with no better right to use it than the party communicating it; but here there is neither bribery nor fraud.
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Prince Albert -v- Strange ChD ((1849) 1 H & Tw 1, 2 De G & SM 293, (1849) 1 Mac & G 25, Bailii, [1849] EWHC Ch J20, [1849] EngR 255, Commonlii, (1849) 41 ER 1171, [1849] EngR 261, Commonlii, (1849) 47 ER 1302, (1849) 2 De Gex & Sim 652)
    The Prince sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from or by one Brown. A personal confidence was claimed.
    Held: . .
  • See Also – Clarke -v- Tipping ([1852] EngR 434 (A), Commonlii, (1852) 16 Beav 12)
    . .

Holland v Russell; 9 May 1863

References: [1863] EngR 546, (1863) 4 B & S 14, (1863) 122 ER 365
Links: Commonlii
This case cites:

  • See Also – Holland -v- Russell ([1861] EngR 728, Commonlii, (1861) 1 B & S 424, (1861) 121 ER 773)
    Insurance. Suppression of material fact. Principal and agent. Money had and received. A, as agent for a foreign owner, entered into a policy of insurance on a ship in the usual form. At the time of effecting the insurance, A was in possession of a . .

Lady Beresford v Driver; 31 Jul 1851

References: [1851] EngR 754, (1851) 14 Beav 387, (1851) 51 ER 335
Links: Commonlii
The defendant, the plaintiff’s ex-land agent was ordered to deliver up documents to former principal relating to her estate and its management
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Fairstar Heavy Transport Nv -v- Adkins and Another CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 886)
    The court was asked whether the appellant company was entitled to an order requiring its former Chief Executive Officer, after the termination of his appointment, to give it access to the content of emails relating to its business affairs, and . .

Callander v Oelrichs And Another; 12 Nov 1838

References: , [1838] EngR 915, (1838) 5 Bing NC 58, (1838) 132 ER 1026
Links: Commonlii
The court considered the extent of a duty of care which might be owed by an agent.
Bosanquet J. said: ‘The jury were warranted in concluding, that if the Defendants were to effect an insurance upon the terms in question, they undertook to give notice in case of failure: that undertaking arises out of the nature of the case, and the relation in which the parties stood to each other: and according to the principle laid down in Smith v. Lascelles if a merchant is led, from previous transactions, to expect that his correspondent will effect an insurance, he has a right to rely on his discharging that duty, unless he receives a letter to the contrary.
Whether that expectation arises from previous dealings, or from an undertaking to insure in the particular instance, can make no difference; and Buller J. says, ‘Where the merchant abroad has no effects in the hands of his correspondent, yet, if the course of dealing between them be such that the one has been used to send orders for insurance, and the other to comply with them, the former has a right to expect that his orders for insurance will be obeyed, unless the latter give him notice to discontinue that course of dealing.”

Fawcett v Whitehouse; 21 Dec 1829

References: (1829) 1 Russ & M 132, [1829] EngR 859, (1829) 1 Russ & My 132, (1829) 39 ER 51
Links: Commonlii
The defendant, intending to enter into a partnership with the plaintiffs, negotiated for the grant by a landlord of a lease to the partnership. The landlord paid the defendant £12,000 for persuading the partnership to accept the lease.
Held: The defendant was accountable to the new partnership for the money. It would otherwise have been a fraud on his partners. An agent, who was negotiating on behalf of a prospective lessee and who accepted a ‘loan’ from the lessor, held the loan on trust for his principal, the lessee.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Simms -v- Conlon and Another CA ([2008] 1 WLR 484, Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 1749, Times 17-Jan-07, [2007] 3 All ER 802)
    Solicitors within a practice sued each other, and one wished to plead the fact of a finding of professional misconduct.
    Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. It was not an abuse for the appellant to continue to assert his innocence, and the . .
  • Cited – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others -v- Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 45, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 471, [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 425, [2014] WTLR 1135, [2014] 4 All ER 79, [2015] 1 AC 250, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 617, [2014] 3 WLR 535, [2014] WLR(D) 317, [2014] 2 BCLC 145, [2015] 1 P &CR DG1, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2013/0049, SC, SC Summary, SC Video)
    The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .