Samuel (Professionally Known As Seal) v Wadlow

Samuel (Professionally Known As Seal) v Wadlow

The respondent was entitled to continuing commission on the appellant’s earnings from the first and second albums under the proper construction of the management and settlement agreements. The settlement agreement was not procured by undue influence and was enforceable. Laches and acquiescence would in any event bar the appellant’s claims due to the considerable passage of time and resulting prejudice.

Parties
Appellant: Samuel (Professionally Known as Seal); Respondent: Wadlow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Management Agreements, Settlement Agreements, Undue Influence, Restraint of Trade, Laches and Acquiescence, Interpretation of Contracts
Contract Law Equity Management Agreements Settlement Agreements Undue Influence Restraint of Trade Laches and Acquiescence Interpretation of 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel (Professionally Known as Seal)

Appellant

Wadlow

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to continuing commission on income from the exploitation of two albums under the management and/or settlement agreements
  2. 2 Whether the management agreement was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade
  3. 3 Whether the management and/or settlement agreements were voidable for undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was entitled to continuing commission on the appellant’s earnings from the first and second albums under the proper construction of the management and settlement agreements. The settlement agreement was not procured by undue influence and was enforceable. Laches and acquiescence would in any event bar the appellant’s claims due to the considerable passage of time and resulting prejudice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The respondent is entitled to continuing commission on the appellant’s earnings from the first and second albums under the settlement agreement.
  • The order for an account stands.