Stein v Chodiev & Ors [2014] EWHC 1201 (Comm) (16 April 2014)

Stein v Chodiev & Ors [2014] EWHC 1201 (Comm) (16 April 2014)

The court found that a binding oral agreement was reached in January 2006 for a fixed 0.5% success fee on all funds raised, covering both Trade Finance and IPO, and that the agreement was not discretionary nor subject to contract. The Claimant acted upon this agreement and was entitled to the fee. The $4 million payment in April 2007 was not a full and final settlement of all claims. The Claimant is entitled to the balance of the agreed success fee.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1201 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Kirill Ace Stein; First Defendant: Patokh Chodiev; Second Defendant: Alexander Machkevitch; Third Defendant: Alijan Ibragimov; Fourth Defendant: Mounissa Chodiev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Oral Agreement, Success Fee, Consultancy Remuneration, Compromise and Settlement, Authority and Principal
Contract Law Commercial Law Oral Agreement Success Fee Consultancy Remuneration Compromise and Settlement Authority and Principal

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

Parties

Kirill Ace Stein

Claimant

Patokh Chodiev

First Defendant

Alexander Machkevitch

Second Defendant

Alijan Ibragimov

Third Defendant

Mounissa Chodiev

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Existence and enforceability of oral agreement for success fee
  2. 2 Nature of the 0.5% success fee (fixed or discretionary)
  3. 3 Scope of the fee (Trade Finance and/or IPO)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a binding oral agreement was reached in January 2006 for a fixed 0.5% success fee on all funds raised, covering both Trade Finance and IPO, and that the agreement was not discretionary nor subject to contract. The Claimant acted upon this agreement and was entitled to the fee. The $4 million payment in April 2007 was not a full and final settlement of all claims. The Claimant is entitled to the balance of the agreed success fee.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Claimant the balance of the 0.5% success fee on Trade Finance and IPO sums raised, less amounts already paid.
  • Interest to be paid on outstanding sums.