Endcape Limited v Musgrave Generators Limited

Endcape Limited v Musgrave Generators Limited

There was no concluded agreement regarding the Interpower stock. However, there was a valid and enforceable oral agreement for a 50:50 profit split on contracts introduced by Mr Roland Hudson (on behalf of the Claimant) to the Defendant, including the Babcock contract. The profit was to be calculated by deducting the Defendant’s costs of materials and labour and the Claimant’s shipping costs from the contract price, with the balance split equally. The Claimant introduced the Babcock contract, and is entitled to 50% of the profit as calculated.

Parties
Claimant: Endcape Limited; Defendant: Musgrave Generators Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for Interpower stock dismissed; claim for profit share on Babcock contract allowed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Profit Sharing Agreements, Introduction Agreements, Directors' Duties, Enforceability of Oral Contracts
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Profit Sharing Agreements Introduction Agreements Directors' Duties Enforceability of Oral Contracts

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Endcape Limited

Claimant

Musgrave Generators Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a concluded agreement regarding Interpower stock
  2. 2 Whether there was a binding profit share agreement for client introductions
  3. 3 Whether any agreement was vitiated by breach of directors’ duties

Ratio Decidendi

There was no concluded agreement regarding the Interpower stock. However, there was a valid and enforceable oral agreement for a 50:50 profit split on contracts introduced by Mr Roland Hudson (on behalf of the Claimant) to the Defendant, including the Babcock contract. The profit was to be calculated by deducting the Defendant’s costs of materials and labour and the Claimant’s shipping costs from the contract price, with the balance split equally. The Claimant introduced the Babcock contract, and is entitled to 50% of the profit as calculated.

Court Disposition

Claim for Interpower stock dismissed; claim for profit share on Babcock contract allowed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant £67,318.38 plus VAT (£13,463.68), total £80,782.06, as 50% profit share on the Babcock contract.
  • Interest payable at the rate pleaded, including under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.