Latchin (t/a Dinkha Latchin Associates) v General Mediterranean Holdings SA & Anor

Latchin (t/a Dinkha Latchin Associates) v General Mediterranean Holdings SA & Anor

The court held that, although no express contract was made at the outset, by 1 September 1994 the conduct of the parties and instructions given by the defendants to the claimant gave rise to an implied contract for reasonable remuneration for work carried out on projects 2, 1, and 3 with GMH, and on project 4 with Mr Auchi personally. The normal implication of a duty to pay arose once the work became substantial and was instructed, and there was no sufficient evidence to rebut this implication. The claimant was not entitled to payment for work on projects 2 and 1 prior to 1 September 1994.

Parties
Claimant: Dinkha Latchin t/a Dinkha Latchin Associates; First Defendant: General Mediterranean Holdings SA; Second Defendant: Nadhmi S Auchi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issues Decision in Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed save as to finding of personal liability of Mr Auchi for projects 2, 1, and 3; varied to find contracts with GMH for those projects and with Mr Auchi personally for project 4.
Legal Topics
Implied Contracts, Remuneration for Professional Services, Agency, Binding Contracts, Quantum Meruit
Contract Law Construction Law Implied Contracts Remuneration for Professional Services Agency Binding Contracts Quantum Meruit

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

Dinkha Latchin t/a Dinkha Latchin Associates

Claimant

General Mediterranean Holdings SA

First Defendant

Nadhmi S Auchi

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issues Decision in Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant entered into any binding contract(s) with the first and/or second defendants as alleged
  2. 2 If so, what were the terms of such contract(s) regarding payment to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although no express contract was made at the outset, by 1 September 1994 the conduct of the parties and instructions given by the defendants to the claimant gave rise to an implied contract for reasonable remuneration for work carried out on projects 2, 1, and 3 with GMH, and on project 4 with Mr Auchi personally. The normal implication of a duty to pay arose once the work became substantial and was instructed, and there was no sufficient evidence to rebut this implication. The claimant was not entitled to payment for work on projects 2 and 1 prior to 1 September 1994.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed save as to finding of personal liability of Mr Auchi for projects 2, 1, and 3; varied to find contracts with GMH for those projects and with Mr Auchi personally for project 4.

Orders

  • The claimant entered into binding contracts with GMH in relation to projects 2, 1, and 3.
  • The claimant entered into a binding contract with Mr Auchi personally in relation to project 4.