Meretz Investments NV v ACP Ltd. [2002] EWHC 1019 (QB) (27 May 2002)

Meretz Investments NV v ACP Ltd. [2002] EWHC 1019 (QB) (27 May 2002)

ACP failed to prove that, as at the relevant date, it was unable to secure finance on reasonable and proper normal commercial terms to complete the fourth and fifth penthouses if the commission was paid. Therefore, the condition for deferral of payment to Meretz was not satisfied. ACP was entitled to deduct professional fees from any sum due to Meretz, not limited to sums under clause 6(c) of the Introduction Agreement.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1019
Parties
Claimant: Meretz Investments NV; Defendant: ACP Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant (Meretz Investments NV)
Legal Topics
Construction of Contracts, Entitlement to Commission, Conditions Precedent, Reasonableness in Satisfaction Clauses, Deduction of Professional Fees
Contract Law Commercial Law Construction of Contracts Entitlement to Commission Conditions Precedent Reasonableness in Satisfaction Clauses Deduction of Professional Fees

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meretz Investments NV

Claimant

ACP Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ACP was entitled to defer payment of commission to Meretz under the Introduction Agreement as varied by subsequent agreements and correspondence
  2. 2 Whether ACP had demonstrated to the reasonable satisfaction of Meretz and Highdorn that all five penthouses would be built within a reasonable timescale
  3. 3 Whether ACP was entitled to deduct professional fees from any sum due to Meretz

Ratio Decidendi

ACP failed to prove that, as at the relevant date, it was unable to secure finance on reasonable and proper normal commercial terms to complete the fourth and fifth penthouses if the commission was paid. Therefore, the condition for deferral of payment to Meretz was not satisfied. ACP was entitled to deduct professional fees from any sum due to Meretz, not limited to sums under clause 6(c) of the Introduction Agreement.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant (Meretz Investments NV)

Orders

  • ACP Limited to pay Meretz Investments NV the sum of £373,000 less £46,472.45 for professional fees, with interest as appropriate