Adler v Ananhall Advisory & Consultancy Services Ltd (Rev. 1) [2009] EWCA Civ 586 (18 June 2009)

Adler v Ananhall Advisory & Consultancy Services Ltd (Rev. 1) [2009] EWCA Civ 586 (18 June 2009)

No implied term existed in the introductory agreement requiring Mr Adler to complete the transaction or not impede completion; Ananhall's entitlement to commission and the £75,000 fee was expressly conditional on completion, which did not occur. No fraudulent misrepresentation was established against Ananhall.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 586
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Jacob Adler; Claimant/respondent: Ananhall Advisory & Consultancy Services Limited; Claimant/appellant: Steelville Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Ananhall's claim for commission and £75,000 dismissed; judge's dismissal of misrepresentation claim upheld.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Commission Agreements, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Construction of Contracts, Remedies
Contract Law Misrepresentation Implied Terms Commission Agreements Fraudulent Misrepresentation Construction of Contracts Remedies

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Adler

Defendant/appellant

Ananhall Advisory & Consultancy Services Limited

Claimant/respondent

Steelville Limited

Claimant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term existed in the introductory agreement requiring Mr Adler not to impede completion and thus entitling Ananhall to commission
  2. 2 Whether Ananhall was entitled to £75,000 for 'pulling' instructions
  3. 3 Whether Ananhall or its agents made fraudulent misrepresentations to Mr Adler

Ratio Decidendi

No implied term existed in the introductory agreement requiring Mr Adler to complete the transaction or not impede completion; Ananhall's entitlement to commission and the £75,000 fee was expressly conditional on completion, which did not occur. No fraudulent misrepresentation was established against Ananhall.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Ananhall's claim for commission and £75,000 dismissed; judge's dismissal of misrepresentation claim upheld.

Orders

  • No payment of 1% commission to Ananhall
  • No payment of £75,000 to Ananhall