Quantum Meruit in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Benedetti v Sawiris
    • Supreme Court
    • 17 Julio 2013
    “

    It is common ground that the correct approach to the amount to be paid by way of a quantum meruit where there is no valid and subsisting contract between the parties is to ask whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched and, if so, to what extent. Thus, if A consults, say, a private doctor or a lawyer for advice there will ordinarily be a contract between them. Often the amount of his or her remuneration is not spelled out.

  • Way v Latilla
    • House of Lords
    • 28 Julio 1937
    “

    The idea of such a fee being excluded, it follows that the question of the amount to which the Appellant is entitled is left at large and the Court must do the best it can to arrive at a figure which seems to it fair and reasonable to both parties on all the facts of the case. One aspect of the facts to be considered is found in the communings of the parties while the business was going on.

  • Guinness Plc v Saunders and Another
    • House of Lords
    • 08 Febrero 1990
    “

    Plainly, it would be inconsistent with this long-established principle to award remuneration in such circumstances as of right on the basis of a quantum meruit claim. But the principle does not altogether exclude the possibility that an equitable allowance might be made in respect of services rendered.

  • A L Barnes Ltd v Time Talk (UK) Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 Marzo 2003
    “

    If he had asked himself who was the successful party, before segregation of the effective costs of proving the quantum meruit claim, he would in my judgment have had to answer that it was the claimants who recovered more than the defendants had ever offered and thus it must be the claimants who were the successful party. The question would then be what proportion, if any, of their costs should they recover.

  • Cecil & others v Ehsanollah Bayat & others
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 29 Marzo 2010
    “

    In this regard, in line with the construction of the same words in relation to tort, it was submitted that is not necessary that all acts are committed within the jurisdiction. I accept that this jurisdictional gateway is sufficiently made out. I accept that this jurisdictional gateway is sufficiently made out.

  • Benedetti and another v Sawiris and Others
    • Chancery Division
    • 21 Julio 2009
    “

    The definition of “brokerage services” in the Revised Brokerage Agreement makes it clear that the €67 million was paid in respect of the work carried out by Mr Benedetti in the negotiation of the purchase of Wind from Enel and the raising of the acquisition debt from the banks.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results