Crane v Sky In-Home Service Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 66 (Ch) (26 January 2007)

Crane v Sky In-Home Service Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 66 (Ch) (26 January 2007)

The claimant's agency did not extend to Sky+ boxes as there was no written authority for such sales as agent; the claimant was a commercial agent under reg 2(1) in respect of Box Packages; however, his activities were 'secondary' within the meaning of reg 2(3) and the Schedule, as the primary purpose of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 66 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: John Harold Crane; 1st Defendant: Sky In-Home Service Limited; 2nd Defendant/intervener: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Agency Compensation Claim (liability Only) / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment After Trial on Liability
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Commercial Agents (council Directive) Regulations 1993, Ultra Vires Challenge to Secondary Legislation, Definition of Commercial Agent, Secondary Activities Under the Regulations, Interpretation of EU Directives, Compensation/indemnity for Terminated Agents
Commercial Law European Union Law Agency Law Commercial Agents (council Directive) Regulations 1993 Ultra Vires Challenge to Secondary Legislation Definition of Commercial Agent Secondary Activities Under the Regulations Interpretation of EU Directives +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Harold Crane

Claimant

Sky In-Home Service Limited

1st Defendant

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

2nd Defendant/intervener

Procedural Posture

Commercial Agency Compensation Claim (liability Only) / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment After Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's agency agreement extended to the sale of Sky+ boxes
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was a 'commercial agent' under reg 2(1) of the Regulations
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's activities were 'secondary' under reg 2(3) and the Schedule, excluding him from compensation/indemnity

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's agency did not extend to Sky+ boxes as there was no written authority for such sales as agent; the claimant was a commercial agent under reg 2(1) in respect of Box Packages; however, his activities were 'secondary' within the meaning of reg 2(3) and the Schedule, as the primary purpose of the arrangement was not the development of a market for the goods in question, and thus he was excluded from compensation or indemnity. The relevant Regulations and Schedule were intra vires the European Communities Act 1972 as a proper exercise of the power to implement a Directive and exercise a Treaty right to derogate.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for compensation or indemnity under the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 dismissed.