Proactive Sports Management Ltd v Rooney & Ors (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1807 (QB) (15 July 2010)

Proactive Sports Management Ltd v Rooney & Ors (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1807 (QB) (15 July 2010)

The court finds that the Image Rights Representation Agreement is not void for mistake and is not unenforceable as a restraint of trade. Proactive is entitled to commission for services rendered under the agreement, including post-termination commission as provided by clause 8. Where contractual claims fail, Proactive is entitled to quantum meruit for services provided to Stoneygate and Speed. The claims for damages must be capped by the liquidated damages provision in clause 8. The court orders a separate assessment for damages and quantum meruit, as quantification is not sufficiently evidenced at this stage.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1807
Parties
Claimant: Proactive Sports Management Limited; Defendant: Wayne Rooney; Defendant: Coleen Rooney (formerly McLoughlin); Defendant: Stoneygate 48 Limited; Defendant: Speed 9849 Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim partly allowed, damages and quantum meruit to be assessed separately
Legal Topics
Agency Agreements, Image Rights, Quantum Meruit, Mistake, Post Termination Commission, Liquidated Damages, Reasonableness of Restraint, Independent Legal Advice
Contract Law Sports Law Restitution Restraint of Trade Agency Agreements Image Rights Quantum Meruit Mistake +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Proactive Sports Management Limited

Claimant

Wayne Rooney

Defendant

Coleen Rooney (formerly McLoughlin)

Defendant

Stoneygate 48 Limited

Defendant

Speed 9849 Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Image Rights Representation Agreement between Proactive and Stoneygate is void for mistake
  2. 2 Whether the Agreement is unenforceable as a restraint of trade
  3. 3 Whether Proactive is entitled to post-termination commission

Ratio Decidendi

The court finds that the Image Rights Representation Agreement is not void for mistake and is not unenforceable as a restraint of trade. Proactive is entitled to commission for services rendered under the agreement, including post-termination commission as provided by clause 8. Where contractual claims fail, Proactive is entitled to quantum meruit for services provided to Stoneygate and Speed. The claims for damages must be capped by the liquidated damages provision in clause 8. The court orders a separate assessment for damages and quantum meruit, as quantification is not sufficiently evidenced at this stage.

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed, damages and quantum meruit to be assessed separately

Orders

  • Proactive entitled to commission under the Image Rights Representation Agreement
  • Proactive entitled to quantum meruit for services rendered to Stoneygate and Speed