Quest Fund Placement Ltd v FSI SGR SpA [2026] EWHC 15 (Comm) (12 January 2026)

Quest Fund Placement Ltd v FSI SGR SpA [2026] EWHC 15 (Comm) (12 January 2026)

Summary judgment is refused because the construction of the Placement Fee provision is not clear on the assumed factual matrix, and there are unresolved issues of fact and law that require a full trial. The court's preliminary view is that the Placement Fee is likely limited to investors introduced by Quest, but...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 15 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Quest Fund Placement Limited; Defendant: FSI SGR SPA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute (summary Judgment Application) / Summary Judgment Application in the High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed; claim not dismissed; to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Commission/placement Agent Contracts, Summary Judgment Principles, Admissibility of Factual Matrix, Construction of Exclusion Clauses, Entitlement to Fees Under Agency Agreements
Contract Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Commission/placement Agent Contracts Summary Judgment Principles Admissibility of Factual Matrix Construction of Exclusion Clauses Entitlement to Fees Under Agency Agreements

Source-derived case record

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quest Fund Placement Limited

Claimant

FSI SGR SPA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute (summary Judgment Application) / Summary Judgment Application in the High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Placement Fee is payable on all investments by investors subscribing after the contract or only those introduced by Quest
  2. 2 Whether Schedules A and B exhaustively define excluded investors for Placement Fee calculation
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment is appropriate given factual matrix disputes

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment is refused because the construction of the Placement Fee provision is not clear on the assumed factual matrix, and there are unresolved issues of fact and law that require a full trial. The court's preliminary view is that the Placement Fee is likely limited to investors introduced by Quest, but this cannot be definitively determined on the current evidence. The claim is not dismissed, as the construction issue is not finally decided and further factual development is required.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed; claim not dismissed; to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Quest's application for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • Quest's claim is not dismissed and will proceed to trial.