Agency - 1998

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 15 November 2008.

Paul Jeremy Duffen -v- Fra Bo Spa [1998] EWCA Civ 749
30 Apr 1998 CA	Agency, Commercial	Casemap 1 Citers
	Application for leave to appeal.
	Link[s] omitted

Paul Jeremy Duffen -v- Fra Bo Spa [1998] EWCA Civ 748; [2000] EuLR 167
30 Apr 1998 CA	Agency, Damages, European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiff had been appointed as an exclusive sales agent for the defendant for a minimum period of four years. The defendants terminated it eighteen months early claiming fraudulent misrepresentation. Held: The clause setting the damages claim was a penalty clause and was unenforceable. The termination of the agency gave rise to a claim additional to the statutory claim. A commercial agent whose contract had been terminated within the regulations was entitled to augment the common law damages due to him with the sums due to him by virtue of the Commercial Agents Regulations. The right approach was to look at net earnings which might have made during the remainder of the period for which his agency would have run had it not been terminated prematurely, but without taking into account common law concepts such as avoided loss and mitigation. An award based on gross earnings would give the agent an undeserved windfall. The judge awarded compensation for loss of future earnings, ignoring the ordinary rules of mitigation.
	Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 No 3053
	Link[s] omitted

Moore -v- Piretta Pta Ltd [1999] 1 All ER 174; [1998] CLY 113
11 May 1998 QBD John Mitting QC	Agency, European, Commercial	Casemap 1 Citers
	M had a series of agency contracts selling women's clothing. The last contract was in 1994, and on termination, M claimed an indemnity under the contract which itself applied the regulations. Reg 17(3) gave an indemnity for new customers, where the principal continued to derive benefit. Held: The agency contract was to be interpreted to include the series of contracts, including those before the regulations. The indemnity was capped at one year's average remuneration over the previous five years. A commercial agent whose contract had been terminated during term of contract was entitled nevertheless to an indemnity in accordance with the Regulations for custom introduced for entire period. In an indemnity case, equitable principles might require there to be taken into account such part of the goodwill as the agent was able to exploit for himself, or for the benefit of another principal. John Mitting QC said: "Consistent with the purpose of achieving harmony between member states, it is in my judgment permissible to look into the law and practice of the country in which the relevant right . . originated . . ; and to do so for the purpose of construing the English (sic) Regulations and to use them as a guide to their application". and "There are three stages in assessing the amount of the indemnity. First, it has to be asked what is the value of the business to the principal of new customers brought . . by the agent and of existing customers whose business has been significantly increased. The factors to be taken into account in making that judgment include the loss of the business of such customers after the agency has been terminated, whether due to causes beyond the agent's and principal's control (for example insolvency on the part of the customer or a decision on the part of that customer to buy goods elsewhere) or to factors within the agent's control, for example the agent taking the custom of that customer with him. That is because the thing that has to be assessed is the extent to which the principal continues to derive substantial benefits from the efforts of the agent. The value of the business which remains for the benefit of the principal can, and in some cases no doubt should be, assessed by reference to periods as short as a year. But there is nothing in the regulations that requires them to be thus limited. If on the evidence the benefits of the agent's efforts are likely to endure for more than a year after the termination of the agency then that fact can be taken into account in the assessment and need not be limited to looking at the period of one year after termination only. The second factor is that the payment must be equitable having regard to all the circumstances and particularly the commission 'lost' by the agent. . Other factors which can be taken into account under this head include . . the expenses which the agent would have incurred in earning the commission which was his due. Another factor common to all cases is accelerated payment: the indemnity is accrued as at the date of termination in respect of commission which would have occurred after it. Some discount on that account must be made. The purpose of the indemnity seems to me to be to award a share of the goodwill built up by the efforts of the agent to him on the termination of the agency. Otherwise the whole benefit of that goodwill will remain with his former principal. The third step in the calculation is this. Having calculated the amount of the indemnity, a cap is applied. The cap is provided for in reg 17(4)."
	Statute References omitted

Goodyear Great Britain Ltd -v- Robert Arthur Noble [1998] EWCA Civ 914
5 Jun 1998 CA	Agency
	Link[s] omitted

Ernest Edward Thatcher -v- Bryant Homes Central Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 948
10 Jun 1998 CA	Construction, Agency
	Link[s] omitted

Ernest Edward Thatcher -v- Bryant Homes Central Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 947
10 Jun 1998 CA	Agency, Construction
	Link[s] omitted

Ingmar Gb Limited -v- Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc [1998] EWCA Civ 1366
31 Jul 1998 CA	Commercial, Agency, European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Statute References omitted
	Link[s] omitted

Colin Stewart Hunter -v- Bowater Windows Limited T/a Zenith Windows Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1381
5 Aug 1998 CA	Agency, Litigation Practice
	Statute References omitted
	Link[s] omitted

Peter Nahum -v- Royal Holloway and Bedford New College [1998] EWCA Civ 1760; [1999] EMLR 252
12 Nov 1998 CA Waller LJ	Agency	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	An estate agent was entitled to his commission when he could show that it was he who had brought about the relationship of buyer and seller. Delay and actions of others intended to hide that causation did not defeat the claim. The defendant asked the plaintiff to look for buyers for three paintings, being paid 2.5% commission. A buyer was introduced who bought the first one, then, after come considerable delay a second. The defendant disputed that commission was payable on the second painting. Held: The idea of 'introduction' included a causative element, and whether the agent had to be an effective cause or the effective cause mattered only when two agents sought commission. The agent had continued to work with the buyer's own agent to press for the sale. He had earned his commission. It was unnecessary to consider further whether there were other events, such as the vendor's own efforts, which could be described as a cause of the transaction between the vendor and the purchaser introduced by the agent.
	Link[s] omitted

William Hayman -v- Keith Dingley [1998] ScotCS 73
20 Nov 1998 SCS T.G. Coutts, Q.C.	Scotland, Agency
	Link[s] omitted

Savills Land and Property Limited -v- Kibble [1998] EWCA Civ 1833
24 Nov 1998 CA	Agency, Contract
	Link[s] omitted