Lediaev (aka Vadim Ledyaev) v Vallen

Lediaev (aka Vadim Ledyaev) v Vallen

The 2006 Agreement is not illegal on its face as it does not expressly require Mr Vallen, an unqualified person, to perform acts prohibited by statute. On its proper construction, and in light of the factual background, Mr Vallen is contractually obliged to account to Mr Lediaev personally for all sums recovered as a result of the settlement with Saffery, less the agreed success fee and expenses. Leave to re-amend the Particulars of Claim to plead illegality is refused due to lateness and potential prejudice.

Parties
Appellant: Vadim Lediaev; Respondent: Dimitry Vallen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Illegality of Contract, Construction of Contract, Unqualified Persons Acting as Solicitors, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Civil Procedure Illegality of Contract Construction of Contract Unqualified Persons Acting as Solicitors Remedies for Breach of Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vadim Lediaev

Appellant

Dimitry Vallen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2006 Agreement is illegal on its face due to involvement of an unqualified person in litigation for reward
  2. 2 Whether Mr Vallen is contractually obliged to account to Mr Lediaev for sums recovered as a result of the settlement with Saffery
  3. 3 Whether the appellant should be granted leave to re-amend the Particulars of Claim to plead illegality

Ratio Decidendi

The 2006 Agreement is not illegal on its face as it does not expressly require Mr Vallen, an unqualified person, to perform acts prohibited by statute. On its proper construction, and in light of the factual background, Mr Vallen is contractually obliged to account to Mr Lediaev personally for all sums recovered as a result of the settlement with Saffery, less the agreed success fee and expenses. Leave to re-amend the Particulars of Claim to plead illegality is refused due to lateness and potential prejudice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Leave to re-amend Particulars of Claim to plead illegality refused
  • Declaration granted that Mr Vallen is contractually obliged to account to Mr Lediaev for all sums recovered as a result of the settlement with Saffery, less the success fee and expenses