Alison Jayne Cooper v Dnata Catering Services Limited

Alison Jayne Cooper v Dnata Catering Services Limited

Ms Cooper's claim failed because the court found no implied term in the contract between En Route and Emirates obliging Emirates to maintain Little Bites 2 for a minimum period or volume. The contract was workable without such a term, and it was not obvious or necessary to imply it. The evidence showed that an independently-operated En Route would not have made a compensation claim for early termination. Regarding Dubai import duty, there was no real chance that the necessary steps would have been completed to secure repayment within the relevant period, and any repayment would have been credited to Emirates, resulting in no loss to Ms Cooper. Therefore, dnata was not in breach of Clause...

Parties
Claimant: Alison Jayne Cooper; Defendant: dnata Catering Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Minority Shareholder Protection, Breach of Shareholders Agreement, Implied Terms in Contract, Loss of Chance, Damages Calculation
Company Law Contract Law Minority Shareholder Protection Breach of Shareholders Agreement Implied Terms in Contract Loss of Chance Damages Calculation

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alison Jayne Cooper

Claimant

dnata Catering Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dnata breached Clause 7.2 of the shareholders agreement by failing to protect the minority shareholder's interests
  2. 2 Whether a binding contract existed between En Route and Emirates for the supply of Little Bites 2 with an implied minimum order or duration term
  3. 3 Whether an independently-operated En Route would have made a compensation claim for early termination of Little Bites 2

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Cooper's claim failed because the court found no implied term in the contract between En Route and Emirates obliging Emirates to maintain Little Bites 2 for a minimum period or volume. The contract was workable without such a term, and it was not obvious or necessary to imply it. The evidence showed that an independently-operated En Route would not have made a compensation claim for early termination. Regarding Dubai import duty, there was no real chance that the necessary steps would have been completed to secure repayment within the relevant period, and any repayment would have been credited to Emirates, resulting in no loss to Ms Cooper. Therefore, dnata was not in breach of Clause...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed