Servicepower Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Servicepower Business Solutions Ltd

Servicepower Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Servicepower Business Solutions Ltd

The Agreement contained detailed express provisions for termination, and it is arguable that no further implied term for termination on reasonable notice should be read in. The Claimant has a real prospect of success on this issue, so summary judgment is refused on the first declaration. However, there is no real prospect of Claimant establishing that Genpact was its customer/account under the Agreement or that the Rules of Engagement or the Agreement governed the relationship and revenue entitlements regarding Genpact, as there was no written authorisation or exercise of the contractual option, nor clear estoppel. Those claims are struck out.

Parties
Claimant: ServicePower Asia Pacific Pty Limited; Defendant: ServicePower Business Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Summary Judgment Application Under CPR Part 24
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part; some claims struck out, others to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Termination of Contract, Declaratory Relief, Summary Judgment, Estoppel
Contract Law Commercial Law Implied Terms Termination of Contract Declaratory Relief Summary Judgment Estoppel

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ServicePower Asia Pacific Pty Limited

Claimant

ServicePower Business Solutions Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Summary Judgment Application Under CPR Part 24

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract was terminable on reasonable notice by implication
  2. 2 Whether Genpact was Claimant's 'customer/account' under the contract
  3. 3 Whether the relationship and revenue entitlements regarding Genpact were governed by the Agreement or Rules of Engagement

Ratio Decidendi

The Agreement contained detailed express provisions for termination, and it is arguable that no further implied term for termination on reasonable notice should be read in. The Claimant has a real prospect of success on this issue, so summary judgment is refused on the first declaration. However, there is no real prospect of Claimant establishing that Genpact was its customer/account under the Agreement or that the Rules of Engagement or the Agreement governed the relationship and revenue entitlements regarding Genpact, as there was no written authorisation or exercise of the contractual option, nor clear estoppel. Those claims are struck out.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part; some claims struck out, others to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Claim for first declaration (termination of Agreement) to proceed to trial.
  • Claims for second and third declarations (Genpact as customer/account and governance by Rules of Engagement or Agreement) struck out.