Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd [2024] EWHC 374 (Ch) (26 March 2024)

Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd [2024] EWHC 374 (Ch) (26 March 2024)

UW owed fiduciary duties as agent, including duty to avoid conflicts and disclose commission amounts; however, the claimant was aware commission was payable and failed to make inquiries; there was no intentional concealment by the defendant or UW; the claim in respect of the first contract is statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980; even if not time-barred, the claimant would not succeed as there was no breach of fiduciary duty requiring compensation; the defendant is not liable as an accessory.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 374 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Expert Tooling and Automation Limited; Defendant: Engie Power Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Secret Commissions, Fiduciary Duties, Agency Relationships, Limitation of Actions, Equitable Compensation, Energy Supply Contracts
Commercial Law Agency Law Equity Secret Commissions Fiduciary Duties Agency Relationships Limitation of Actions Equitable Compensation +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Expert Tooling and Automation Limited

Claimant

Engie Power Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Utilitywise plc (UW) owed fiduciary duties to the claimant as agent
  2. 2 Whether UW breached fiduciary duties by failing to disclose commission amounts
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was liable as an accessory to any breach by UW

Ratio Decidendi

UW owed fiduciary duties as agent, including duty to avoid conflicts and disclose commission amounts; however, the claimant was aware commission was payable and failed to make inquiries; there was no intentional concealment by the defendant or UW; the claim in respect of the first contract is statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980; even if not time-barred, the claimant would not succeed as there was no breach of fiduciary duty requiring compensation; the defendant is not liable as an accessory.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim in respect of contract 1 is statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  • Claims in respect of contracts 2-5 fail on the merits