Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc [2010] EWHC 461 (Comm) (16 March 2010)

Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc [2010] EWHC 461 (Comm) (16 March 2010)

Mr Crema was only entitled to be paid his fee if and when Cenkos received payment from GPV. The agreement, construed in light of its wording and City practice, did not create an unconditional obligation on Cenkos to pay Mr Crema irrespective of its own receipt of funds. Mr Crema was the effective cause of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 461 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Thomas Crema; Defendant: Cenkos Securities PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim for Brokerage Fees / High Court Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Brokerage Agreements, Sub Brokerage Fees, Implied Terms, Industry Custom and Practice, Effective Cause in Commission Claims
Contract Law Commercial Law Brokerage Agreements Sub Brokerage Fees Implied Terms Industry Custom and Practice Effective Cause in Commission Claims

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Thomas Crema

Claimant

Cenkos Securities PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim for Brokerage Fees / High Court Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is Mr Crema entitled to payment of his fee regardless of whether Cenkos received payment from GPV?
  2. 2 Was there an express or implied term that payment to Mr Crema depended on Cenkos being paid?
  3. 3 Was Mr Crema the effective cause of the BlueCrest investment?

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Crema was only entitled to be paid his fee if and when Cenkos received payment from GPV. The agreement, construed in light of its wording and City practice, did not create an unconditional obligation on Cenkos to pay Mr Crema irrespective of its own receipt of funds. Mr Crema was the effective cause of the BlueCrest investment, but as Cenkos was not paid by GPV, no fee was due to Mr Crema.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for £882,000 plus interest dismissed
  • No order for payment by Cenkos to Mr Crema