Wright v Rowland & Anor [2017] EWHC 2478 (Comm) (09 October 2017)

Wright v Rowland & Anor [2017] EWHC 2478 (Comm) (09 October 2017)

No binding oral contract was formed between Mr Wright and the Rowlands granting an option to purchase BH shares or other remuneration as alleged. The evidence, including lack of documentation, inconsistent witness testimony, and surrounding circumstances, does not support Mr Wright's claim. Payments and arrangements were ad hoc or as an employee, not under a binding contract. Mr Wright is not entitled to damages or quantum meruit.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2478 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Wright; Defendant: David Rowland; Defendant: Jonathan Rowland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Oral Agreements, Quantum Meruit, Repudiation, Remuneration Agreements
Contract Law Commercial Law Contract Formation Oral Agreements Quantum Meruit Repudiation Remuneration 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wright

Claimant

David Rowland

Defendant

Jonathan Rowland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral contract was formed in 2008 or 2009 between Mr Wright and the Rowlands for remuneration and an option to purchase shares
  2. 2 Whether Mr Wright sourced the opportunity to acquire Banque Havilland for the Rowlands
  3. 3 Whether Mr Wright was granted an option to purchase shares in BH

Ratio Decidendi

No binding oral contract was formed between Mr Wright and the Rowlands granting an option to purchase BH shares or other remuneration as alleged. The evidence, including lack of documentation, inconsistent witness testimony, and surrounding circumstances, does not support Mr Wright's claim. Payments and arrangements were ad hoc or as an employee, not under a binding contract. Mr Wright is not entitled to damages or quantum meruit.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for breach of contract and quantum meruit dismissed
  • No damages or relief awarded to claimant