Watersheds Ltd v Dacosta & Anor

Watersheds Ltd v Dacosta & Anor

The Defendants were not induced by misrepresentation or nondisclosure to enter into the agreement; the written terms were clear and provided for a minimum fee and personal guarantees. Watersheds' activities did not constitute regulated activity under FSMA 2000, or were exempt as incidental to professional services. Even if unenforceable, the court would exercise discretion to allow enforcement. The Counterclaim for negligent advice fails as no negligent advice was given.

Parties
Claimant: Watersheds Limited; Defendant: David Dacosta; Defendant: Paul Gentleman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant; Counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Personal Guarantees, Enforceability of Contracts, Financial Services and Markets Act, Negligence
Contract Law Financial Regulation Misrepresentation Personal Guarantees Enforceability of Contracts Financial Services and Markets Act Negligence

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Watersheds Limited

Claimant

David Dacosta

Defendant

Paul Gentleman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants were induced to enter into the agreement by misrepresentation concerning the minimum fee
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants were induced to enter into 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

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants were not induced by misrepresentation or nondisclosure to enter into the agreement; the written terms were clear and provided for a minimum fee and personal guarantees. Watersheds' activities did not constitute regulated activity under FSMA 2000, or were exempt as incidental to professional services. Even if unenforceable, the court would exercise discretion to allow enforcement. The Counterclaim for negligent advice fails as no negligent advice was given.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant; Counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the sum claimed (£59,119.20) plus appropriate interest.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.