NM Financial Management Ltd v Marshall
| Published date | 01 April 1997 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024949 |
| Date | 01 April 1997 |
| Pages | 371-372 |
| Author | Butler‐Sloss LJ,Millet LJ,Thorpe LJ,Joanna Gray |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Volume 5 Number 4
Court of Appeal upholds agent's right to
renewal commission
NM Financial Management Ltd v Marshall
Court of Appeal: Butler-Sloss LJ, Millet LJ and Thorpe LJ
Date of Judgment: 13th March, 1997
Reported at: Times Law Reports, 24th June, 1997
FACTS
Both the facts giving rise to this appeal and
the first instance decision are considered in
detail in Vol. 4, No. 4 Journal of Financial
Regulation and Compliance, p. 397. The
Respondent to the appeal, Mr Marshall,
had been a self-employed sales agent
engaged by the Appellant company in the
selling of life assurance and pension poli-
cies.
The terms of his engagement were
contained in two successive contracts of
which the latter provided, inter alia:
— that he should be an independent
contractor remunerated by commission
payable on premiums generated by
business introduced by him
— that the relationship between the two
parties was that of agent and principal,
and
— that that agency was an exclusive one,
ie the Respondent was not entitled to
act as agent for any other principal.
In addition, Clause 10(g) provided as fol-
lows:
'If at the date of termination of this
agreement ... the agent has for a period
of not less than five years been continu-
ously an agent of the company and
either
(i) within the period of one year after the
date of such termination the agent does
not become an independent intermediary
or become employed by or represent or
become an appointed representative of
any company or organisation which may
directly or indirectly be in competition
with the company, or
(ii) at the date of termination the agent
(if an individual) has attained the age of
65 years, then the company shall pay to
the agent renewal commission arising up
to his death (in the event that the agent
is an individual) or its liquidation (in the
event that the agent is a limited
company) in respect of any investment
agreement which results from applica-
tions submitted by the agent prior to
such termination at the rates and upon
and subject to the terms and conditions
set out in the Commission Schedule'.
On 1st August, 1992, 12 years after the
Respondent was first engaged by the
Appellant, the Respondent, who was by
then 40 years old, terminated the agree-
ment and joined another financial services
company.
ACTION
The Respondent issued a summons in 1995
seeking a declaration that proviso (i) in
Journal of Financial Regulation
and Compliance, Vol. 5, No. 4,
1997, pp. 371-372
© Henry Stewart Publications,
1358-1988
Page 371
To continue reading
Request your trial