ACLBDD Holdings Ltd & Ors v Staechelin & Ors

ACLBDD Holdings Ltd & Ors v Staechelin & Ors

There was a binding contractual agreement on 26 June 2014 between the claimants (acting through the LLP) and the defendants (the trustees), for the payment of $10 million commission if the painting was sold for $210 million. The trust instrument permitted a majority of trustees to bind the trust, and the agreement was not subject to further approval. No breach of fiduciary duty or dishonesty by the claimants was established to defeat the claim. The LLP is entitled to judgment for $10 million.

Parties
Claimant: ACLBDD Holdings Limited; Claimant: De Pury & De Pury LLP; Claimant: Simon de Pury; Claimant: Michaela de Pury; Defendant: Ruedi Staechelin; Defendant: Martin David Paisner; Defendant: Carlyn McCaffrey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants
Legal Topics
Commission Agreements, Trustee Powers, Fiduciary Duties, Agency, Quantum Meruit, Interpretation of Trust Instruments
Contract Law Trust Law Commission Agreements Trustee Powers Fiduciary Duties Agency Quantum Meruit Interpretation of Trust Instruments

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

Parties

ACLBDD Holdings Limited

Claimant

De Pury & De Pury LLP

Claimant

Simon de Pury

Claimant

Michaela de Pury

Claimant

Ruedi Staechelin

Defendant

Martin David Paisner

Defendant

Carlyn McCaffrey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there a binding agreement to pay commission to the claimants?
  2. 2 Who is liable to pay the commission under the trust instrument?
  3. 3 Did the claimants owe and breach fiduciary duties to the defendants?

Ratio Decidendi

There was a binding contractual agreement on 26 June 2014 between the claimants (acting through the LLP) and the defendants (the trustees), for the payment of $10 million commission if the painting was sold for $210 million. The trust instrument permitted a majority of trustees to bind the trust, and the agreement was not subject to further approval. No breach of fiduciary duty or dishonesty by the claimants was established to defeat the claim. The LLP is entitled to judgment for $10 million.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants

Orders

  • The defendants (trustees) shall pay $10 million to the claimants (LLP) as commission.
  • Further submissions to be heard on interest and costs.