Berezovsky & Anor v Edmiston & Company Ltd & Anor

Berezovsky & Anor v Edmiston & Company Ltd & Anor

Edmiston & Co, through their sub-broker Merle Wood & Associates, were the effective cause of the sale of the yacht Darius to the Al Futtaim family, as their introduction was the dominant cause of the transaction. The appropriate commission is 3% of the €240 million sale price, amounting to €7.2 million. There was no contract or quantum meruit basis for MWA to claim commission directly from the Claimants.

Parties
Claimant: Boris Berezovsky; Claimant: Petersham Holdings Limited; Defendant: Edmiston & Company Limited; Defendant: Merle Wood & Associates Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (brokerage Commission) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for Edmiston & Co on their counterclaim; Claimants' claims against Edmiston & Co dismissed; Declaration of non-liability to MWA; MWA's counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Brokerage Commission, Effective Cause, Quantum Meruit, Sub Brokerage 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boris Berezovsky

Claimant

Petersham Holdings Limited

Claimant

Edmiston & Company Limited

Defendant

Merle Wood & Associates Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (brokerage Commission) / Judgment After Trial

  1. 1 Whether Edmiston & Co were the 'effective cause' of the sale of the yacht Darius to the Al Futtaim family
  2. 2 What sum is due by way of commission to Edmiston & Co
  3. 3 Whether Merle Wood & Associates Inc has a right to commission enforceable directly against the Claimants

Ratio Decidendi

Edmiston & Co, through their sub-broker Merle Wood & Associates, were the effective cause of the sale of the yacht Darius to the Al Futtaim family, as their introduction was the dominant cause of the transaction. The appropriate commission is 3% of the €240 million sale price, amounting to €7.2 million. There was no contract or quantum meruit basis for MWA to claim commission directly from the Claimants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Edmiston & Co on their counterclaim; Claimants' claims against Edmiston & Co dismissed; Declaration of non-liability to MWA; MWA's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay Edmiston & Co €7.2 million as commission
  • Claimants' claims against Edmiston & Co dismissed