Back
Legal

Michael Elliot & Partners v UK Land plc

Agents introduced purchasers — Whether agents appointed by purchasers’ immediate agents — Whether purchasers’ agents had ostensible authority — Whether agents entitled to quantum meruit fee — Claim in quantum meruit allowed

The plaintiffs, a firm of chartered surveyors, claimed the sum of £256,450 from the defendant company for services rendered in connection with the acquisition by the defendants in April 1989 of four properties from Regentcrest plc for £25m. Nelson Bakewell Ltd were then acting as agents for the defendants and by a letter of April 21 1989 informed the defendants that the plaintiffs required a 1% introductory commission for their work; there was no response to this letter from the defendants and they did not at any time agree to pay the plaintiffs any introductory commission or fee. The defendants contended that they did not appoint the plaintiffs as their agents or authorise Nelson Bakewell to make any agreement on their behalf.

Held The claim was allowed in part.

1. The evidence showed that the defendants did not know of the plaintiffs’ involvement until they submitted their invoice; there was therefore no direct commitment by the defendants to pay the 1% commission and no contract between the parties in writing or otherwise, express or implied, to pay the commission.

2. Services were rendered by the plaintiffs in connection with the acquisition by the plaintiffs of the properties and the plaintiffs were engaged by Nelson Bakewell; it was the plaintiffs who introduced the defendants as purchasers and the defendants benefited from this. On the evidence Nelson Bakewell had ostensible authority to engage the plaintiffs. A director of the defendants knew that the plaintiffs were acting in the matter with Nelson Bakewell’s approval. Accordingly the plaintiffs were entitled to a fee on a quantum meruit basis; the proper sum was £64,000.

Andrew Onslow (instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell) appeared for the plaintiffs; and Dominic Kendrick (instructed by Russell-Cooke Potter & Chapman) appeared for the defendants.

Up next…