Benourad v Compass Group Plc

Benourad v Compass Group Plc

No binding contract was concluded between the claimant and the defendant regarding commission for the introduction to KCC, as negotiations were subject to contract and no executed agreement existed. The claimant was not the effective cause of any subsequent arrangements between the defendant (or its subsidiaries) and KCC, and no joint venture as contemplated by the draft agreement was entered into. While the claimant may in principle be entitled to a reasonable fee in restitution for the introduction, there was insufficient evidence to determine the amount, and the claim for commission fails.

Parties
Claimant: Tahar Benourad; Defendant: Compass Group PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/restitution) / Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Claim for commission dismissed; quantum meruit claim undetermined pending further submissions/evidence.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Quantum Meruit, Authority of Agents, Ostensible Authority, Effective Cause in Commission Agreements
Contract Law Restitution/unjust Enrichment Formation of Contract Quantum Meruit Authority of Agents Ostensible Authority Effective Cause in Commission Agreements

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

Parties

Tahar Benourad

Claimant

Compass Group PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/restitution) / Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether negotiations and conduct resulted in a binding contract entitling the claimant to commission
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to a reasonable fee in restitution (quantum meruit) for introducing the defendant to KCC
  3. 3 Whether any agreement was subject to contract or binding

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract was concluded between the claimant and the defendant regarding commission for the introduction to KCC, as negotiations were subject to contract and no executed agreement existed. The claimant was not the effective cause of any subsequent arrangements between the defendant (or its subsidiaries) and KCC, and no joint venture as contemplated by the draft agreement was entered into. While the claimant may in principle be entitled to a reasonable fee in restitution for the introduction, there was insufficient evidence to determine the amount, and the claim for commission fails.

Court Disposition

Claim for commission dismissed; quantum meruit claim undetermined pending further submissions/evidence.

Orders

  • The claim for commission is dismissed.
  • The court will hear submissions on whether the quantum meruit claim fails or should be referred for assessment of a reasonable introduction fee.