Bairstow Eves London Central Ltd v Smith & Anor [2004] EWHC 263 (QB) (20 February 2004)

Bairstow Eves London Central Ltd v Smith & Anor [2004] EWHC 263 (QB) (20 February 2004)

The operative price under the agreement was 1.5% commission with a default provision for 3% if payment was not made within 10 days; regulation 6(2) is inapplicable, allowing scrutiny under regulation 5(1); the 3% commission clause is unfair and not binding on the consumer.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 263 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Bairstow Eves London Central Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant/respondent: Adrian Smith; Defendant/part 20 Claimant/respondent: Stacy Hill; Part 20 Defendant/respondent: Darlingtons (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Commission Agreements, Interpretation of Contractual Terms
Contract Law Consumer Protection Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Commission Agreements Interpretation of Contractual Terms

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

Parties

Bairstow Eves London Central Limited

Claimant/appellant

Adrian Smith

Defendant/part 20 Claimant/respondent

Stacy Hill

Defendant/part 20 Claimant/respondent

Darlingtons (A Firm)

Part 20 Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Applicability of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 to commission clause
  2. 2 Whether commission clause is unfair and not binding
  3. 3 Interpretation of regulation 6(2) regarding price adequacy

Ratio Decidendi

The operative price under the agreement was 1.5% commission with a default provision for 3% if payment was not made within 10 days; regulation 6(2) is inapplicable, allowing scrutiny under regulation 5(1); the 3% commission clause is unfair and not binding on the consumer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Bairstow's claim against vendors dismissed
  • No further liability for vendors