Alan Ramsay Sales & Marketing Ltd v Typhoo Tea Ltd

Alan Ramsay Sales & Marketing Ltd v Typhoo Tea Ltd

The emails of 18 and 26 March 2013 were protected by without prejudice privilege as they formed part of negotiations to resolve an extant dispute. They did not constitute a repudiatory breach. The claimant's email of 28 March 2013 was itself repudiatory but was not accepted by the defendant as terminating the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Alan Ramsay Sales & Marketing Limited; Defendant: Typhoo Tea Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Termination of Agency Agreement, Without Prejudice Privilege, Compensation Under Commercial Agents Regulations, Damages for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Termination of Agency Agreement Without Prejudice Privilege Compensation Under Commercial Agents Regulations Damages for Breach of Contract

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Ramsay Sales & Marketing Limited

Claimant

Typhoo Tea Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether emails of 18 and 26 March 2013 were protected by without prejudice privilege
  2. 2 Whether those emails constituted a repudiatory breach of the agency agreement
  3. 3 Whether claimant's email of 28 March 2013 was repudiatory and if defendant accepted it

Ratio Decidendi

The emails of 18 and 26 March 2013 were protected by without prejudice privilege as they formed part of negotiations to resolve an extant dispute. They did not constitute a repudiatory breach. The claimant's email of 28 March 2013 was itself repudiatory but was not accepted by the defendant as terminating the agreement. The defendant affirmed the agency agreement by permitting continued performance and payment until 11 May 2013. The agency agreement continued until terminated on 11 May 2013. The claimant is entitled to compensation under Regulation 17 and damages for insufficient notice.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Claimant awarded compensation under Regulation 17 in the region of £130,000
  • Claimant awarded damages for insufficient notice in the sum of £45,459