Aboualsaud v Aboukhater & Anor [2007] EWHC 2122 (QB) (19 September 2007)

Aboualsaud v Aboukhater & Anor [2007] EWHC 2122 (QB) (19 September 2007)

The court found that no binding oral agency agreement was made between the claimant and the defendants for the payment of commission. The discussions were informal and lacked contractual intent. Even if an agreement had existed, the claimant's introduction of Kingdom was not an effective cause of the eventual sale, as the purchaser was a joint venture formed independently and not as a result of the claimant's introduction. The chain of causation was broken, and the claimant was not entitled to commission.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2122
Parties
Claimant: Waleed Aboualsaud; First Defendant: Bassam Aboukhater; Second Defendant: Toufic Aboukhater
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Oral Contracts, Agency Agreements, Commission Entitlement, Effective Cause in Agency, Introduction of Purchaser, Causation in Contract
Contract Law Agency Law Commercial Law Oral Contracts Agency Agreements Commission Entitlement Effective Cause in Agency Introduction of Purchaser +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waleed Aboualsaud

Claimant

Bassam Aboukhater

First Defendant

Toufic Aboukhater

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding oral agency agreement existed between the claimant and the defendants for commission on the sale of the Monte Carlo Grand Hotel
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's introduction of Kingdom was an effective cause of the eventual sale of the hotel to FHR European Ventures LLP

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no binding oral agency agreement was made between the claimant and the defendants for the payment of commission. The discussions were informal and lacked contractual intent. Even if an agreement had existed, the claimant's introduction of Kingdom was not an effective cause of the eventual sale, as the purchaser was a joint venture formed independently and not as a result of the claimant's introduction. The chain of causation was broken, and the claimant was not entitled to commission.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for commission dismissed
  • No order for payment of commission to claimant