Charles Stanley & Co Ltd v Adams [2013] EWHC 2137 (QB) (19 July 2013)

Charles Stanley & Co Ltd v Adams [2013] EWHC 2137 (QB) (19 July 2013)

The contractual procedure for determining the broker's liability for losses, even though it allows the employer to be judge in its own cause, is not void for public policy provided the decision-maker acts reasonably and in good faith and the court's jurisdiction is not ousted. The procedure was part of the contract, had been followed, and was enforceable.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2137
Parties
Claimant: Charles Stanley & Co Limited; Defendant: John Adams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Contractual Claim (debt Recovery) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Contractual Determination Clauses, Personal Liability of Self Employed Brokers, Public Policy and Ouster of Court Jurisdiction, Natural Justice in Contractual Procedures
Contract Law Employment Law Contractual Determination Clauses Personal Liability of Self Employed Brokers Public Policy and Ouster of Court Jurisdiction Natural Justice in Contractual Procedures

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Stanley & Co Limited

Claimant

John Adams

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contractual Claim (debt Recovery) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contractual clause allowing the employer to determine the broker's liability for losses is enforceable or void as contrary to public policy
  2. 2 Whether the determination and appeals procedure in the contract ousts the jurisdiction of the court

Ratio Decidendi

The contractual procedure for determining the broker's liability for losses, even though it allows the employer to be judge in its own cause, is not void for public policy provided the decision-maker acts reasonably and in good faith and the court's jurisdiction is not ousted. The procedure was part of the contract, had been followed, and was enforceable.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £100,000 less £6,775.40 commission withheld and accepted as due to defendant