Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc

Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc

The agreement between Mr Crema and Cenkos entitled Mr Crema to a share of brokerage only if and when Cenkos received payment from GPV. There was no express or implied term requiring Cenkos to pay Mr Crema irrespective of its own receipt of fees. No wider duty of care or implied contractual duty was established. Mr Crema was the effective cause of the BlueCrest investment, but as Cenkos was not paid, no fee was due to Mr Crema.

Parties
Claimant: Thomas Crema; Defendant: Cenkos Securities PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Brokerage Agreements, Sub Brokerage Fees, Implied Terms, Industry Practice, Effective Cause, Duty of Care
Contract Law Commercial Law Brokerage Agreements Sub Brokerage Fees Implied Terms Industry Practice Effective Cause Duty of Care

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Crema

Claimant

Cenkos Securities PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute / Judgment After Trial

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 receiving its fee?
  3. 3 Did Cenkos owe Mr Crema a duty of care or implied contractual duty to secure payment from GPV?

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement between Mr Crema and Cenkos entitled Mr Crema to a share of brokerage only if and when Cenkos received payment from GPV. There was no express or implied term requiring Cenkos to pay Mr Crema irrespective of its own receipt of fees. No wider duty of care or implied contractual duty was established. Mr Crema was the effective cause of the BlueCrest investment, but as Cenkos was not paid, no fee was due to Mr Crema.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed