Mileform Ltd v Interserve Security Ltd [2013] EWHC 3386 (QB) (05 November 2013)

Mileform Ltd v Interserve Security Ltd [2013] EWHC 3386 (QB) (05 November 2013)

The court found that no enforceable exclusivity term was agreed between the parties. The written agreement, which contained a non-exclusive appointment and an entire agreement clause, superseded any alleged oral agreement. The evidence did not support Mileform's claim that an exclusivity term was discussed or agreed prior to or at the time of contract formation. Accordingly, Interserve did not breach any exclusivity obligation, and Mileform's claim for damages failed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3386 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mileform Limited; Defendant: Interserve Security Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Entire Agreement Clauses, Exclusivity Clauses, Breach of Contract, Damages, Authority of Agents
Contract Law Commercial Law Contract Formation Entire Agreement Clauses Exclusivity Clauses Breach of Contract Damages Authority of Agents

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mileform Limited

Claimant

Interserve Security Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between Mileform and Interserve contained an enforceable exclusivity term
  2. 2 Whether any oral exclusivity agreement was superseded by the written contract and its entire agreement clause
  3. 3 Whether Interserve breached the contract by terminating services and appointing alternative suppliers

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no enforceable exclusivity term was agreed between the parties. The written agreement, which contained a non-exclusive appointment and an entire agreement clause, superseded any alleged oral agreement. The evidence did not support Mileform's claim that an exclusivity term was discussed or agreed prior to or at the time of contract formation. Accordingly, Interserve did not breach any exclusivity obligation, and Mileform's claim for damages failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Mileform's claim for damages is dismissed
  • No order for rectification or estoppel