Frape v Emreco International Ltd [2001] ScotCS 196 (2 August 2001)

Frape v Emreco International Ltd [2001] ScotCS 196 (2 August 2001)

The word 'termination' in the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 must be interpreted purposively to include contracts ending by effluxion of time, thereby entitling commercial agents to statutory compensation regardless of the manner in which the contract ends.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 196
Parties
Pursuer: David Frape; Defender: Emreco International Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Commercial Agency Compensation Dispute / Interlocutory Judgment on Legal Interpretation, Proof Before Answer Allowed
Outcome
Pursuer's motion upheld; proof before answer allowed; certain pleas-in-law repelled; further hearing on expenses required.
Legal Topics
Commercial Agents, Statutory Compensation, Interpretation of 'termination', Council Directive 86/853/eec, Commercial Agents (council Directive) Regulations 1993

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Frape

Pursuer

Emreco International Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Agency Compensation Dispute / Interlocutory Judgment on Legal Interpretation, Proof Before Answer Allowed

  1. 1 Does 'termination' in the Commercial Agents Regulations include expiry by effluxion of time?
  2. 2 Is the pursuer entitled to statutory compensation on expiry of a fixed-term agency contract?

Ratio Decidendi

The word 'termination' in the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 must be interpreted purposively to include contracts ending by effluxion of time, thereby entitling commercial agents to statutory compensation regardless of the manner in which the contract ends.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's motion upheld; proof before answer allowed; certain pleas-in-law repelled; further hearing on expenses required.

Orders

  • Delete from Answer 4 at page 12E the words 'Separatim esto' to the end of that answer on 13B ending with the word 'Regulations'.
  • Repel defenders' pleas-in-law 2 and 9.