Younes v Chrysanthou & Anor [2016] EWHC 3269 (QB) (16 December 2016)

Younes v Chrysanthou & Anor [2016] EWHC 3269 (QB) (16 December 2016)

The court found no credible evidence of a partnership or 70/30 agreement; the arrangement fee was held by Rufus Limited solely for the claimant's benefit, and the counterclaim for partnership profits failed due to lack of proof of any such agreement.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3269
Parties
Claimant: Agila Younes; First Defendant: Demetris Chrysanthou; Second Defendant: Rufus Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (high Court, Queen's Bench Division, London Mercantile Court) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Existence of Partnership, Beneficial Ownership of Company Assets, Oral Agreements, Counterclaim for Partnership Profits, Arrangement Fee Entitlement
Commercial Law Partnership Law Equity and Trusts Existence of Partnership Beneficial Ownership of Company Assets Oral Agreements Counterclaim for Partnership Profits Arrangement Fee Entitlement

Case Brief

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agila Younes

Claimant

Demetris Chrysanthou

First Defendant

Rufus Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (high Court, Queen's Bench Division, London Mercantile Court) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a legally binding partnership agreement between the claimant and first defendant covering the relevant ventures
  2. 2 Whether the claimant or the defendants were entitled to the arrangement fee paid to Rufus Limited
  3. 3 Whether the alleged 70/30 agreement existed regarding the division of the JNR Fee

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no credible evidence of a partnership or 70/30 agreement; the arrangement fee was held by Rufus Limited solely for the claimant's benefit, and the counterclaim for partnership profits failed due to lack of proof of any such agreement.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the outstanding balance of the JNR Fee to the claimant.
  • Counterclaim for share of Al-Karima Project profits dismissed.