Brian Burgess v Robert Kempson

Brian Burgess v Robert Kempson

The parties entered into a binding oral contract on 3 August 2013 under which the claimant was to receive 15% of any improvement in terms (i.e., an offer exceeding £250,000 per acre) for the defendant's land, provided the claimant was an effective cause of the improvement. The claimant was not the effective cause of the eventual sale to Latimer, nor did any improved terms result from his actions. The contract precluded any claim in unjust enrichment. No sums are due to the claimant.

Parties
Claimant: Brian Burgess; Defendant: Robert Kempson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/unjust Enrichment) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Oral Contracts, Quantum Meruit, Effective Cause, Family Arrangements, Valuation of Land, Remuneration Agreements
Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Oral Contracts Quantum Meruit Effective Cause Family Arrangements Valuation of Land Remuneration Agreements

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Burgess

Claimant

Robert Kempson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/unjust Enrichment) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral contract was entered into between the parties on 3 August 2013 and its terms
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was legally binding or binding in honour only
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to remuneration under the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The parties entered into a binding oral contract on 3 August 2013 under which the claimant was to receive 15% of any improvement in terms (i.e., an offer exceeding £250,000 per acre) for the defendant's land, provided the claimant was an effective cause of the improvement. The claimant was not the effective cause of the eventual sale to Latimer, nor did any improved terms result from his actions. The contract precluded any claim in unjust enrichment. No sums are due to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for contractual remuneration dismissed
  • Claim for quantum meruit (unjust enrichment) dismissed