Watersheds Ltd v Dacosta & Anor [2009] EWHC 1299 (QB) (13 February 2009)

Watersheds Ltd v Dacosta & Anor [2009] EWHC 1299 (QB) (13 February 2009)

The defendants were not induced to enter the agreement by misrepresentation or nondisclosure; the written terms were clear as to the minimum fee and personal guarantees, and the defendants had the opportunity to read and understand them. The agreement was not unenforceable under FSMA 2000 as the services did not amount to a regulated activity, or alternatively, the court would exercise its discretion to enforce the agreement. The counterclaim for negligent advice failed as there was no evidence of breach of duty or causation.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1299
Parties
Claimant: Watersheds Limited; Defendant: David Dacosta; Defendant: Paul Gentleman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Claim and Counterclaim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Personal Guarantees, Enforceability Under FSMA 2000, Minimum Fee Clauses, Directors' Liabilities
Contract Law Financial Services Regulation Misrepresentation Personal Guarantees Enforceability Under FSMA 2000 Minimum Fee Clauses Directors' Liabilities

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

Parties

Watersheds Limited

Claimant

David Dacosta

Defendant

Paul Gentleman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Claim and Counterclaim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were induced to enter the agreement by misrepresentation concerning the minimum fee.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were induced to enter the agreement by misrepresentation or material nondisclosure concerning their personal liability under the guarantees.
  3. 3 Whether the agreement is unenforceable by reason of section 26 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000).

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were not induced to enter the agreement by misrepresentation or nondisclosure; the written terms were clear as to the minimum fee and personal guarantees, and the defendants had the opportunity to read and understand them. The agreement was not unenforceable under FSMA 2000 as the services did not amount to a regulated activity, or alternatively, the court would exercise its discretion to enforce the agreement. The counterclaim for negligent advice failed as there was no evidence of breach of duty or causation.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Watersheds Limited £59,119.20 plus interest.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.