Litkraft Ltd v Cottrell [2023] EWHC 465 (Comm) (03 March 2023)

Litkraft Ltd v Cottrell [2023] EWHC 465 (Comm) (03 March 2023)

The 2013 Contract was validly varied by exchange of emails to provide for a 17.5% fee in High Value Cases, capped at £10,000. There was a concluded agreement on this point. The Defendants' pleaded case on regulatory compliance was inconsistent with the evidence. The non-disclosure illegality defence failed as the relevant regulatory breach was not established on the pleaded case and there was no sufficient prejudice or public policy reason to deny enforcement. Issues of VAT invoices and translation fees remain live only for costs or quantum arguments. Estoppel and quantum meruit claims do not arise as Claimant succeeds on contract variation.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 465 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Litkraft Limited; Defendant: Simon Cottrell; Defendant: Christopher Williams; Defendant: Edward Goldsmith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim for Unpaid Fees (preliminary Issues Trial) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claimant succeeds on the preliminary issue of contract variation for High Value Cases; other issues deferred or dismissed as academic or not live.
Legal Topics
Contract Variation, Referral Fees, Illegality, Estoppel, Quantum Meruit, Limitation, VAT Invoices, Translation Fees, Transferred Cases
Contract Law Regulatory Law Civil Procedure Contract Variation Referral Fees Illegality Estoppel Quantum Meruit +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Litkraft Limited

Claimant

Simon Cottrell

Defendant

Christopher Williams

Defendant

Edward Goldsmith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim for Unpaid Fees (preliminary Issues Trial) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2013 Contract was varied to provide for 17.5% fee in High Value Cases
  2. 2 Whether a new contract was agreed for High Value Cases
  3. 3 Construction and effect of the Settlement Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The 2013 Contract was validly varied by exchange of emails to provide for a 17.5% fee in High Value Cases, capped at £10,000. There was a concluded agreement on this point. The Defendants' pleaded case on regulatory compliance was inconsistent with the evidence. The non-disclosure illegality defence failed as the relevant regulatory breach was not established on the pleaded case and there was no sufficient prejudice or public policy reason to deny enforcement. Issues of VAT invoices and translation fees remain live only for costs or quantum arguments. Estoppel and quantum meruit claims do not arise as Claimant succeeds on contract variation.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds on the preliminary issue of contract variation for High Value Cases; other issues deferred or dismissed as academic or not live.

Orders

  • Declaration that the 2013 Contract was varied to provide for 17.5% fee in High Value Cases, capped at £10,000
  • Remaining issues (quantum, VAT invoices, translation fees, LASPO referral fee) to be determined at subsequent hearing