CEP Holdings Ltd v CEP Claddings Ltd [2009] EWHC 2447 (QB) (09 October 2009)

CEP Holdings Ltd v CEP Claddings Ltd [2009] EWHC 2447 (QB) (09 October 2009)

The EDA was never novated or assigned to Claddings; Steni's conduct did not amount to waiver or estoppel. Steni was entitled to terminate the EDA for Holdings' failure to use all reasonable endeavours to promote and sell Steni products in the Territory and for non-payment in relation to the Aberfeldy project. The overcharging claim failed. Steni was entitled to its counterclaim for unpaid invoices and damages for Holdings' breach.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2447 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: CEP Holdings Limited; Claimant/part 20 Defendant: CEP Claddings Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Steni AS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Novation and Assignment, Repudiatory Breach, Exclusive Distribution Agreements, Termination for Breach, Estoppel, Overcharging Claims, Counterclaims
Contract Law Commercial Law Novation and Assignment Repudiatory Breach Exclusive Distribution Agreements Termination for Breach Estoppel Overcharging Claims +1 more

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

Parties

CEP Holdings Limited

Claimant

CEP Claddings Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Steni AS

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Exclusive Distributor Agreement (EDA) was novated or assigned to CEP Claddings Limited or remained with CEP Holdings Limited
  2. 2 Whether Steni AS was entitled to terminate the EDA for alleged breaches by Holdings/Claddings
  3. 3 Whether Steni AS overcharged Claddings in breach of the EDA

Ratio Decidendi

The EDA was never novated or assigned to Claddings; Steni's conduct did not amount to waiver or estoppel. Steni was entitled to terminate the EDA for Holdings' failure to use all reasonable endeavours to promote and sell Steni products in the Territory and for non-payment in relation to the Aberfeldy project. The overcharging claim failed. Steni was entitled to its counterclaim for unpaid invoices and damages for Holdings' breach.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Claimants' claims dismissed
  • Steni's counterclaim for unpaid invoices and damages allowed