Adler v Ananhall Advisory & Consultancy Services Ltd (Rev. 1)

Adler v Ananhall Advisory & Consultancy Services Ltd (Rev. 1)

The agreement did not contain an implied term obliging Mr Adler to complete the transaction or not impede completion; Ananhall's entitlement to commission and the £75,000 was expressly conditional on completion, which did not occur. There was no actionable misrepresentation by Ananhall regarding the state of negotiations with HSE.

Parties
Defendant/appellant/claimant/appellant: Jacob Adler; Claimant/respondent/defendant/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 on Appeal From Manchester County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Ananhall's claims for commission and £75,000 dismissed; dismissal of misrepresentation counterclaim upheld.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Commission Agreements, Construction of Contracts
Contract Law Tort Law Implied Terms Breach of Contract Fraudulent Misrepresentation Commission Agreements Construction of Contracts

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Adler

Defendant/appellant/claimant/appellant

Ananhall Advisory & Consultancy Services Limited

Claimant/respondent/defendant/respondent

Steelville Limited

Claimant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Manchester County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the introductory agreement contained an implied term that Mr Adler would not impede completion to prevent Ananhall earning commission
  2. 2 Whether Ananhall was entitled to 1% commission and/or £75,000 under the agreement
  3. 3 Whether Ananhall (through Mr Pollard) was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding negotiations with HSE

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement did not contain an implied term obliging Mr Adler to complete the transaction or not impede completion; Ananhall's entitlement to commission and the £75,000 was expressly conditional on completion, which did not occur. There was no actionable misrepresentation by Ananhall regarding the state of negotiations with HSE.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Ananhall's claim for 1% commission dismissed
  • Ananhall's claim for £75,000 dismissed