Regent Associates Ltd v Brazier & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 999 (17 June 2002)

Regent Associates Ltd v Brazier & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 999 (17 June 2002)

The Court held that, on a proper construction of the service agreement, the claimants were entitled to a success fee on any sale of shares during the engagement period, regardless of whether they introduced the purchaser. Clause 5 was clear and unqualified, and the references to 'prospective purchaser' in other clauses did not limit the entitlement under clause 5. The attempt to raise a suspension defence was refused as it was not properly pleaded or argued at first instance.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 999
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Regent Associates Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Morna Brazier; Defendant/appellant: Paul Brazier; Defendant/appellant: Anne Holmes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; permission to amend notice of appeal granted except for ground 12.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Service Agreements, Entitlement to Success Fee, Construction of Contractual Terms, Commission Entitlement
Contract Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Service Agreements Entitlement to Success Fee Construction of Contractual Terms Commission 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

Regent Associates Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Morna Brazier

Defendant/appellant

Paul Brazier

Defendant/appellant

Anne Holmes

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were entitled to a success fee under the service agreement despite not introducing the purchaser
  2. 2 Proper construction of clauses 5, 8, and 11 of the service agreement
  3. 3 Effect of putting the agreement 'on hold' on entitlement to fees

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, on a proper construction of the service agreement, the claimants were entitled to a success fee on any sale of shares during the engagement period, regardless of whether they introduced the purchaser. Clause 5 was clear and unqualified, and the references to 'prospective purchaser' in other clauses did not limit the entitlement under clause 5. The attempt to raise a suspension defence was refused as it was not properly pleaded or argued at first instance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; permission to amend notice of appeal granted except for ground 12.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to respondents, to be assessed if not agreed