Dickinson (t/a John Dickinson Equipment Finance) v Rushmer (t/a F J Associates) [2000] EWCA Civ 42 (14 February 2000)

Dickinson (t/a John Dickinson Equipment Finance) v Rushmer (t/a F J Associates) [2000] EWCA Civ 42 (14 February 2000)

The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the parties agreed to share equally all commissions, fees, profits, or other benefits from joint transactions. The appellant's attempt to amend his counterclaim after judgment to include claims for losses and repayment of fees was rightly refused, as the claims had been abandoned earlier, their late introduction would prejudice the respondent, and the time for such claims was at the liability hearing. The agreement was sufficiently certain to be enforceable.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 42
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Mr Rushmer; Respondent/claimant: Mr Dickinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment and Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Oral Agreements, Brokerage Agreements, Account of Profits, Amendment of Pleadings, Sharing of Losses and Profits
Contract Law Commercial Law Oral Agreements Brokerage Agreements Account of Profits Amendment of Pleadings Sharing of Losses and Profits

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Rushmer

Appellant/defendant

Mr Dickinson

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment and Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the terms of the oral agreement between the parties regarding sharing of profits and losses from joint brokerage transactions?
  2. 2 Was the judge correct to refuse permission to amend the counterclaim to include claims for losses after judgment on liability?
  3. 3 Was the agreement too vague to be enforceable?

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the parties agreed to share equally all commissions, fees, profits, or other benefits from joint transactions. The appellant's attempt to amend his counterclaim after judgment to include claims for losses and repayment of fees was rightly refused, as the claims had been abandoned earlier, their late introduction would prejudice the respondent, and the time for such claims was at the liability hearing. The agreement was sufficiently certain to be enforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal and application for permission to appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Stay of execution of the judgment imposed on 7 June 1999 removed.