Heat Trace (UK) Ltd v Heat Trace Ltd

Heat Trace (UK) Ltd v Heat Trace Ltd

The Distribution Agreement was not terminated in November 2013 as a matter of law; the Claimant has a real prospect of success on this issue and on its claim for damages for breach of the Distribution Agreement. The claim for commission on Trace Heating Projects also has a real prospect of success. The claim for commission under the alleged Introducer Agreement and for the Uganda Project (other than quantum meruit) has no real prospect of success due to lack of sufficient pleading and contemporaneous evidence. The Network Rail claim is statute-barred and the proposed amendment introduces a new claim not arising from the same or substantially the same facts, so amendment is refused. The...

Parties
Claimant: Heat Trace (UK) Ltd; Defendant: Heat Trace Limited; Third Party: Alan Pearson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial/contractual Dispute / Interlocutory Applications for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Permission to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Summary judgment for Defendant in part; permission to amend granted in part; summary judgment on counterclaim refused.
Legal Topics
Distribution Agreements, Breach of Contract, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Quantum Meruit, Commercial Agency
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Distribution Agreements Breach of Contract Summary Judgment Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions +2 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heat Trace (UK) Ltd

Claimant

Heat Trace Limited

Defendant

Alan Pearson

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial/contractual Dispute / Interlocutory Applications for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Permission to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Distribution Agreement was terminated in November 2013 or September 2017
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant breached the Distribution Agreement by making direct sales
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to commission for introductions (Introducer Agreement)

Ratio Decidendi

The Distribution Agreement was not terminated in November 2013 as a matter of law; the Claimant has a real prospect of success on this issue and on its claim for damages for breach of the Distribution Agreement. The claim for commission on Trace Heating Projects also has a real prospect of success. The claim for commission under the alleged Introducer Agreement and for the Uganda Project (other than quantum meruit) has no real prospect of success due to lack of sufficient pleading and contemporaneous evidence. The Network Rail claim is statute-barred and the proposed amendment introduces a new claim not arising from the same or substantially the same facts, so amendment is refused. The...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for Defendant in part; permission to amend granted in part; summary judgment on counterclaim refused.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Defendant on the Network Rail claim; permission to amend refused for this claim.
  • Summary judgment for Defendant on the Uganda Project claim except for quantum meruit; permission to amend granted for quantum meruit claim.