Key Facts
- •Timothy Holmes (Claimant), a property intermediary, claimed £900,000 from Christopher Downing (First Defendant) and the estate of Meyrick Cox (deceased, represented by Second and Third Defendants) for services rendered in acquiring properties CB161 and CB182.
- •CB161: A portfolio of 161 properties acquired for £8,250,000.
- •CB182: An apartment block in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
- •The Claimant alleged oral agreements for fees related to both acquisitions.
- •Defendants denied the claims, disputing the existence and terms of the agreements.
- •The trial involved six days of evidence and numerous procedural issues.
- •Witness credibility played a central role in the Judge's decision-making.
Legal Principles
Contract interpretation should not consider facts known only to one party.
Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36
Difference between independent and dependent promises.
Chitty on Contracts, 35th edition, paragraph 25-025
In commercial cases, contemporaneous documentary evidence is preferred to oral evidence.
Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm)
Principles regarding estate agent fees (analogous to the case).
Foxtons Ltd v Bicknell & Anr [2008] EWCA Civ 419, Glentree Estates Ltd v Holbeton Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 755, and Chitty, 35th Ed.
Principles regarding agents.
Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency, 23rd Ed (paragraphs 1-001(1), (2), (4) and 1-020)
If a party wishes to submit that a witness's evidence should not be accepted, that party must challenge that evidence in cross-examination.
Phipson on Evidence, 20th Ed. at paragraph 12-12; Rahme v Smith & Williamson Trust Corporation Ltd [2009] EWHC 911 (Ch)
Outcomes
Judgment for the Claimant for £700,000 concerning CB161.
Contemporaneous documents and the credible witness testimony supported the Claimant's assertion of a fixed fee of £700,000 for CB161, despite conflicting oral evidence and the Defendants' claims of deductions.
Claim dismissed concerning CB182.
The Claimant failed to prove the existence of a contract for CB182 due to lack of credible evidence; inconsistent testimony regarding the date of the alleged agreement; and the absence of corroborating documentation.