Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Crema

Appellant

Cenkos Securities Plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Mr Crema was entitled to commission from Cenkos regardless of whether Cenkos received payment from GPV
  2. 2 Whether a term should be implied making Mr Crema's commission conditional on Cenkos being paid by GPV
  3. 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