Archive for the 'agency' Category

Cavel USA, Inc and another v Seaton Insurance Co and another – WLR Daily

Cavel USA, Inc and another v Seaton Insurance Co and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1363; [2009] WLR (D) 369

“The concept of fraud in the English commercial law context in a case having an international flavour was much wider than the concept of deceit flowing from a fraudulent misrepresentation and could extend to cases without the need to establish the element of dishonesty of the person against whom the fraud was alleged.”

WLR Daily, 17th December 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina (Oriel Support Ltd) v Commissioners for Revenue and Customs – Times Law Reports

Regina (Oriel Support Ltd) v Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

Court of Appeal

“An outsourcing company responsible for calculating and paying the wages of workers employed by a labour provider to work for other businesses was not entitled to use its own employer reference when accounting for the tax on the workers’ wages because it was not the workers’ employer.”

The Times, 25th March 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack – Times Law Reports

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack

Court of Appeal

“An agent who made a secret deal with his principal’s employer breached his fiduciary duty to his principal, forfeited his agency fee and had to account for the secret profit.”

The Times, 24th March 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack – WLR Daily

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack [2009] EWCA Civ 63; [2009] WLR (D) 56

“An agent when negotiating with another person on behalf of his principal breached the fiduciary duty which he owed to his principal if at the same time he made with the other person an undisclosed side deal for his own benefit and there were a real possibility of conflict of interest. In such a case the agent was required to account to the principal in respect of the secret commission so received and was not entitled to receive any agency fees from the principal.”

WLR Daily, 17th February 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

The County Homesearch Co (Thames & Chilterns) Ltd v Cowham – WLR Daily

The County Homesearch Co (Thames & Chilterns) Ltd v Cowham [2008] EWCA Civ 26; [2008] WLR (D) 24

“As in the case of a seller’s agent, where the remuneration of a property buyer’s agent was a commission on exchange of contracts, then unless the agency contract indicated otherwise, a term was to be implied that he was not entitled to such commission unless his services were the effective cause of the transaction brought about. However, no such term was to be implied in the present case as it would be inconsistent with the express terms of the contract between the buyer’s agent and the buyer.”

WLR Daily, 1st February 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Lonsdale (t/a Londsdale Agencies) v Howard and Hallam Ltd – Times Law Reports

Decline in shoe business justifies agent’s award

Lonsdale (t/a Lonsdale Agencies) v. Howard and Hallam Ltd

House of Lords

“Where a principal’s business had been in decline, the judge’s statutory award of £5,000 rather than commission for two years sought by the agent had been adequate.”

The Times, 10th July 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication   

Lonsdale (trading as Lonsdale Agencies) v Howard & Hallam Ltd (Winemakers’ Federation of Australia Inc intervening) – WLR Daily

Lonsdale (trading as Lonsdale Agencies) v Howard & Hallam Ltd (Winemakers’ Federation of Australia Inc intervening)

“An award of £5,000 compensation rather than the two years’ commission sought by the agent pursuant to reg 17(6) of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 had been adequate where the principal’s business had been in decline.”

WLR Daily, 4th July 2007 

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


May 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Categories