Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc
The Court of Appeal held that the contract between Mr Crema and Cenkos did not contain an implied term making Mr Crema's entitlement to commission conditional on Cenkos being paid by GPV. The absence of express wording or relevant market practice meant the default position applied, entitling Mr Crema to commission once the funds were raised for GPV.
- Parties
- Appellant: Thomas Crema; Respondent: Cenkos Securities Plc
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 16 December 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Implied Terms, Commission Agreements, Market Practice, Contract Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Thomas Crema
Appellant
Cenkos Securities Plc
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mr Crema was entitled to commission from Cenkos regardless of whether Cenkos received payment from GPV
- 2 Whether a term should be implied making Mr Crema's commission conditional on Cenkos being paid by GPV
- 3 Admissibility and relevance of expert evidence on market practice in contract interpretation
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the contract between Mr Crema and Cenkos did not contain an implied term making Mr Crema's entitlement to commission conditional on Cenkos being paid by GPV. The absence of express wording or relevant market practice meant the default position applied, entitling Mr Crema to commission once the funds were raised for GPV.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Mr Crema is entitled to commission from Cenkos as claimed
- No implied term making commission conditional on Cenkos receiving payment from GPV
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment