Mahmood v Mitsubishi Electric Europe BV & Ors [2013] EWHC 44 (Ch) (18 January 2013)

Mahmood v Mitsubishi Electric Europe BV & Ors [2013] EWHC 44 (Ch) (18 January 2013)

The claimant's claims against the First and Second Defendants (MEE and MELCO) in respect of both the consortium contract and the sub-sub-contracts have a real prospect of success and should proceed to trial; the Master was wrong to dismiss the claim regarding the consortium contract on summary judgment. The claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants (MHI and CORP) in restitution are fanciful, lack any real prospect of success, and were rightly dismissed on summary judgment.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 44 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Asif Mahmood; First Defendant/respondent: Mitsubishi Electric Europe BV; Second Defendant/respondent: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Third Defendant/respondent: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd; Fourth Defendant/respondent: Mitsubishi Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (summary Judgment) / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; claim against First and Second Defendants to proceed to trial; claim against Third and Fourth Defendants dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Consultancy Agreements, Implied Terms, Quantum Meruit, Unjust Enrichment, Causation, Restitution, Contractual Interpretation
Contract Law Restitution/unjust Enrichment Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Consultancy Agreements Implied Terms Quantum Meruit Unjust Enrichment +3 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 2 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asif Mahmood

Claimant/appellant

Mitsubishi Electric Europe BV

First Defendant/respondent

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

Second Defendant/respondent

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd

Third Defendant/respondent

Mitsubishi Corporation

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (summary Judgment) / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a real prospect of success in claims for contractual commission and/or restitution against the defendants under CPR 24.2
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted or the claims should proceed to trial
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's services led to the award of contracts to the defendants or their affiliates

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's claims against the First and Second Defendants (MEE and MELCO) in respect of both the consortium contract and the sub-sub-contracts have a real prospect of success and should proceed to trial; the Master was wrong to dismiss the claim regarding the consortium contract on summary judgment. The claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants (MHI and CORP) in restitution are fanciful, lack any real prospect of success, and were rightly dismissed on summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Claimant's appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; claim against First and Second Defendants to proceed to trial; claim against Third and Fourth Defendants dismissed.

Orders

  • Claimant's appeal against dismissal of claim regarding the consortium contract against First and Second Defendants is allowed; that claim may proceed to trial.
  • First and Second Defendants' cross-appeal seeking summary judgment on the remainder of the claim is dismissed.