Image from Google Jackets

W A Ellis Services Ltd v Stuart Wood and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1993) 31 EG 78-83(6)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: ChD 14 May 1993. The second defendant (X) was a director and shareholder of a company which entered into a joint venture to develop a property as flats. The plaintiff estate agents (W) sold three flats and received commission from X`s solicitors out of the purchase money. X took control of the company. W sold a fourth flat and sent an invoice to X`s solicitors who informed him that they had been instructed not to pay them out of the proceeds of the flat. The company went into liquidation. W claimed commission from X on the grounds of unlawful interference of contract, whereby they were to be paid commission directly by X`s solicitors out of the receipts of completion and that X held the disputed fees as trustee. The claim was dismissed on the grounds that there was no contractual term to be paid from the completion and X did not hold the fees in trust. No duty of care was owed by X and therefore there was no negligent misrepresentation.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS49230 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 70427-1001

ChD 14 May 1993. The second defendant (X) was a director and shareholder of a company which entered into a joint venture to develop a property as flats. The plaintiff estate agents (W) sold three flats and received commission from X`s solicitors out of the purchase money. X took control of the company. W sold a fourth flat and sent an invoice to X`s solicitors who informed him that they had been instructed not to pay them out of the proceeds of the flat. The company went into liquidation. W claimed commission from X on the grounds of unlawful interference of contract, whereby they were to be paid commission directly by X`s solicitors out of the receipts of completion and that X held the disputed fees as trustee. The claim was dismissed on the grounds that there was no contractual term to be paid from the completion and X did not hold the fees in trust. No duty of care was owed by X and therefore there was no negligent misrepresentation.