Martin v Posener & Anor [2017] EWHC 2320 (QB) (13 September 2017)

Martin v Posener & Anor [2017] EWHC 2320 (QB) (13 September 2017)

The contract, properly construed under Massachusetts law, entitled the Claimant to reimbursement of expenses and 30% of the net award from the BADV, as the operative clause covered awards by the BADV and the ambiguity in the definition of 'Posener Property' was resolved by extrinsic evidence of the parties' intentions. There was no attorney-client relationship or breach of professional conduct making the contract unenforceable. The Claimant's refusal to fund a specific expense was not a repudiatory breach, and the Defendants' arguments to the contrary failed. The Claimant was entitled to the sums claimed, subject to proof of quantum.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2320 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Anthony D. Martin; Defendant: Michael Posener; Defendant: Nicholas Posener
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Contract Claim (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed (subject to quantum)
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Terms, Repudiatory Breach, Attorney Client Relationship and Professional Conduct, Restitution for Holocaust Era Property Claims
Contract Law Restitution Private International Law Interpretation of Contract Terms Repudiatory Breach Attorney Client Relationship and Professional Conduct Restitution for Holocaust Era Property Claims

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

Parties

Anthony D. Martin

Claimant

Michael Posener

Defendant

Nicholas Posener

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Claim (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract entitled the Claimant to reimbursement of expenses and a percentage of compensation awarded by the BADV
  2. 2 Whether the contract was unenforceable due to alleged breach of professional conduct rules (Massachusetts Code of Professional Conduct Rule 1.18)
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was in repudiatory breach by refusing to fund an expense

Ratio Decidendi

The contract, properly construed under Massachusetts law, entitled the Claimant to reimbursement of expenses and 30% of the net award from the BADV, as the operative clause covered awards by the BADV and the ambiguity in the definition of 'Posener Property' was resolved by extrinsic evidence of the parties' intentions. There was no attorney-client relationship or breach of professional conduct making the contract unenforceable. The Claimant's refusal to fund a specific expense was not a repudiatory breach, and the Defendants' arguments to the contrary failed. The Claimant was entitled to the sums claimed, subject to proof of quantum.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed (subject to quantum)

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the Claimant reimbursement of expenses paid to Mr. Chudson and 30% of the net BADV award, subject to proof of quantum.
  • Any further issues on quantum to be resolved by further submissions or hearing if necessary.