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 and binding. The minimum fee and guarantee provisions were explicit, and the defendants had opportunity to review and seek advice. The agreement did not constitute a regulated activity under FSMA 2000, and even if it did, the court would exercise discretion to enforce it. The counterclaim for negligent advice fails as Watersheds exercised appropriate diligence.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1299 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Watersheds Limited; Defendant: David Dacosta; Defendant: Paul Gentleman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Personal Guarantees, Enforceability Under FSMA 2000, Negligent Advice
Contract Law Financial Services Regulation Misrepresentation Personal Guarantees Enforceability Under FSMA 2000 Negligent Advice

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 / Final Judgment After Trial

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 nondisclosure concerning 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

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were not induced to enter the agreement by misrepresentation or nondisclosure; the written terms were clear and binding. The minimum fee and guarantee provisions were explicit, and the defendants had opportunity to review and seek advice. The agreement did not constitute a regulated activity under FSMA 2000, and even if it did, the court would exercise discretion to enforce it. The counterclaim for negligent advice fails as Watersheds exercised appropriate diligence.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

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