Coupers Partnership Ltd v Erol Basarik
Coupers Partnership Ltd v Erol Basarik
- 2007
[2007] EWCA Civ 40, 31 January 2007. The appellant appealed against a judgment in favour of the respondent. The appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondent that the respondent would seek a reduction in the rateable value of his business property and would receive payment of 25 per cent of the reduction in the rateable value. Following an increase in rateable value in 2000, the respondent submitted an appeal on the appellant's behalf seeking a reduction. Ten months later and before the appeal had been concluded the rateable value had been increased again. The appeal against the original 2000 rateable value was successful and the respondent sought payment under the agreement of 25 per cent of the reduction obtained. The appellant unsuccessfully resisted the claim and was given permission to appeal because neither the deputy district judge nor the circuit judge had appreciated that the reduction obtained had only been effective for 10 months. "Held": As a result of the increase in rateable value the respondent had failed to secure a reduction effective for five years and was not entitled to any fee under the agreement.
England--886-
[2007] EWCA Civ 40, 31 January 2007. The appellant appealed against a judgment in favour of the respondent. The appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondent that the respondent would seek a reduction in the rateable value of his business property and would receive payment of 25 per cent of the reduction in the rateable value. Following an increase in rateable value in 2000, the respondent submitted an appeal on the appellant's behalf seeking a reduction. Ten months later and before the appeal had been concluded the rateable value had been increased again. The appeal against the original 2000 rateable value was successful and the respondent sought payment under the agreement of 25 per cent of the reduction obtained. The appellant unsuccessfully resisted the claim and was given permission to appeal because neither the deputy district judge nor the circuit judge had appreciated that the reduction obtained had only been effective for 10 months. "Held": As a result of the increase in rateable value the respondent had failed to secure a reduction effective for five years and was not entitled to any fee under the agreement.
England--886-