Holmes v Downing & Ors [2024] EWHC 2018 (Comm) (06 August 2024)

Holmes v Downing & Ors [2024] EWHC 2018 (Comm) (06 August 2024)

The court found that an oral contract was made on 6 March 2020 entitling the Claimant to a fixed fee of £700,000 for CB161, subject only to deduction of one-third of the sum actually paid to Big Help Project as a contribution, and that the Claimant was entitled to £200,000 for CB182 as agreed. The court rejected the Defendants' arguments for further deductions and found the Claimant performed the required services. The court preferred contemporaneous documents over the oral evidence of both main witnesses, finding both lacked credibility on details but the Claimant's broad account was more consistent with the documents.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2018 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Timothy Holmes; First Defendant: Christopher Downing; Second Defendant: Thomas Pears Chaplin; Third Defendant: Cressida Rosamund Cox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (high Court, Business and Property Courts, Circuit Commercial Court) / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part for the Claimant.
Legal Topics
Oral Contracts, Remuneration for Services, Property Acquisition Intermediaries, Deductions From Agreed Fees, Burden of Proof in Civil Claims, Assessment of Witness Credibility
Contract Law Commercial Law Agency Law Oral Contracts Remuneration for Services Property Acquisition Intermediaries Deductions From Agreed Fees Burden of Proof in Civil 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Holmes

Claimant

Christopher Downing

First Defendant

Thomas Pears Chaplin

Second Defendant

Cressida Rosamund Cox

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (high Court, Business and Property Courts, Circuit Commercial Court) / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the terms of the oral contracts between the Claimant and Defendants regarding CB161 and CB182?
  2. 2 Was the Claimant entitled to a fee for services provided in relation to CB161 and/or CB182, and if so, in what amount?
  3. 3 Were deductions from the agreed fee for CB161 justified and in what sum?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that an oral contract was made on 6 March 2020 entitling the Claimant to a fixed fee of £700,000 for CB161, subject only to deduction of one-third of the sum actually paid to Big Help Project as a contribution, and that the Claimant was entitled to £200,000 for CB182 as agreed. The court rejected the Defendants' arguments for further deductions and found the Claimant performed the required services. The court preferred contemporaneous documents over the oral evidence of both main witnesses, finding both lacked credibility on details but the Claimant's broad account was more consistent with the documents.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part for the Claimant.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the Claimant £700,000 in respect of CB161, less one-third of the sum actually paid to Big Help Project as a contribution.
  • Defendants to pay the Claimant £200,000 in respect of CB182.