High Court Examines Contractual Formation and Enforceability of Promises in Dr Marcel Normann & Anor v Xio (UK) LLP & OrsDecisive Analysis of Key Legal Principles

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2862 (Comm)
Judgment on


In the recent judgment of Dr Marcel Normann & Anor v Xio (UK) LLP & Ors [2023] EWHC 2862 (Comm), the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales delivered a cogent analysis of several key legal principles in the context of contract law, particularly revolving around the formation of contracts, the intention to create legal relations, the three certainties of trust, proprietary estoppel, and the related claim for declaratory relief. This case is instructive for legal professionals concerning the enforceability of promises or representations made in a commercial context, especially where such statements fall short of crystallizing into binding contractual obligations.

Key Facts

The case involves former senior executives of the XiO Group, who asserted that they were entitled to receive “carried interest” from the Defendants, based on alleged promises made to them in various communications. The Defendants argued that the claims were without merit and applied for reverse summary judgment/strike out. The court had to consider whether the Claimants’ case was realistic or fanciful, examining both the existence of a potentially binding contract and the likelihood of successfully establishing a contract with any of the Defendants.

Contract Formation

The principle of contract formation is one of the key issues highlighted in this case. The court emphasized that, generally, for a contract to be formed, there must be an offer and acceptance along with the certainty of terms and the intention to create legal relations.

The objective test for intention to create legal relations requires a manifestation of assent sufficiently concrete for the law to recognize. The court assessed the emails and statements made by the Defendants to determine whether they amounted to an expression of willingness to contract.

Entire Agreement and No Oral Modification Clauses

The significance of entire agreement and no oral modification (NOM) clauses was underlined, demonstrating the importance of ensuring all intended terms are encapsulated within the signed agreement, particularly in the context of subscribing to future benefits such as carried interest.

Quantum Meruit and Unjust Enrichment

The court considered quantum meruit in the specific context of contractual arrangements. It affirmed that a claim in unjust enrichment generally cannot proceed where a subsisting contract covers the benefit provided unless the enrichment was at the claimant’s expense.

Trust Law

The judgment clarified the necessity for the three certainties: intent, subject matter, and objects, for the formation of an expressed or constructive trust, reiterating the established stances laid out in trust law.

Proprietary Estoppel

The court assessed the grounds for proprietary estoppel, which entails a representation or assurance relied on by the claimant, leading to a detriment, and the necessity for the enforcement of an equitable remedy.

Declaratory Relief

The court addressed the claim for declaratory relief, ultimately deeming it inappropriate given the substantive claims’ failure.


The court granted summary judgment for the Defendants, finding no realistic prospects for the Claimants to establish a binding contract on the claimed terms nor to assert that any alleged contract was with the specific Defendants in question. The application for reverse summary judgment/strike out was successful and, as a result, the amendment application failed as well.


The judgment in Dr Marcel Normann & Anor v Xio (UK) LLP & Ors meticulously dissects the obstacles to enforcing non-contractual promises in the absence of clarity and demonstrates the court’s unwillingness to stretch principles like intention to create legal relations and unjust enrichment to bind parties retrospectively. Legal professionals should draw from this case the importance of securing explicit agreements, properly accounting for future commitments, and recognizing the limitations of implied contracts in a commercial framework. The judgment crystallizes the notion that nebulous promises which ultimately fail to materialize into concrete contractual terms will not satisfy judicial scrutiny when seeking enforcement.

Related Summaries