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

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

There was no partnership agreement or 70/30 agreement between the claimant and first defendant. The JNR Fee was held by the second defendant for the sole benefit of the claimant. The claimant is entitled to the outstanding balance. The first defendant's counterclaim for a share of profits from the Al-Karima Project fails for lack of evidence of any such agreement or entitlement.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3269 (QB)
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) / 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 2 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) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a partnership agreement between the claimant and first defendant to share profits equally from business ventures
  2. 2 Whether a 70/30 agreement existed regarding the JNR Fee
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to the balance of the JNR Fee held by the second defendant

Ratio Decidendi

There was no partnership agreement or 70/30 agreement between the claimant and first defendant. The JNR Fee was held by the second defendant for the sole benefit of the claimant. The claimant is entitled to the outstanding balance. The first defendant's counterclaim for a share of profits from the Al-Karima Project fails for lack of evidence of any such agreement or entitlement.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant is entitled to the outstanding balance of the JNR Fee held by the second defendant.
  • The first defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.