Derek Hodd Ltd v Climate Change Capital Ltd

Derek Hodd Ltd v Climate Change Capital Ltd

The claimant failed to establish entitlement to a contingency fee under the consultancy agreement because the benchmark and recommendation reports lacked clear, actionable cost-saving recommendations and did not satisfy the contractually agreed success criteria. The contract was construed to be between Zukra Limited and Climate Change Capital Limited, with compliance to the Business Names Act 1985 found, but no actionable breach or unjust enrichment established.

Parties
Claimant: Derek Hodd Limited; Defendant: Climate Change Capital Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Contingency Fees, Consultancy Agreements, Business Names Act Compliance, Rectification, Misnomer, Quantum Meruit, Unjust Enrichment
Contract Law Commercial Law Contingency Fees Consultancy Agreements Business Names Act Compliance Rectification Misnomer Quantum Meruit +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Hodd Limited

Claimant

Climate Change Capital Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Identity of contracting parties under consultancy agreement
  2. 2 Compliance with Business Names Act 1985
  3. 3 Entitlement to contingency fee under contract

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish entitlement to a contingency fee under the consultancy agreement because the benchmark and recommendation reports lacked clear, actionable cost-saving recommendations and did not satisfy the contractually agreed success criteria. The contract was construed to be between Zukra Limited and Climate Change Capital Limited, with compliance to the Business Names Act 1985 found, but no actionable breach or unjust enrichment established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for contingency fee under consultancy agreement dismissed
  • Alternative claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment dismissed