Whittle v Result Strategic Marketing
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Aikens |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 403 |
| Date | 25 March 2013 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2012/2122 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 403
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM ALTRINCHAM COUNTY COURT
(MR RECORDER YIP QC)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Aikens
Case No: B2/2012/2122
William Moffett (instructed by the Keith Jones Partnership) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal which was refused on paper. The applicant, who was the claimant below, Mr Nicholas Whittle, seeks leave to appeal the judgment and order of Recorder Yip dated 26 July 2012.
The claim is one for damages for alleged wrongful repudiation of contract. The Recorder dismissed the claim.
The claim was brought on a contract for services to be provided by the applicant to the respondent. The contract was to provide for services for marketing motor sports events. There was, by the time of the hearing before the Recorder, no dispute that the contract for services was for 12 months and was in return for a monthly fee of £4,800 plus VAT. The judge found, and it is not now contested, that there was a term of the contract that the applicant would work for three days per week.
The contract was concluded in October 2010. Troubles started in the course of email exchanges between the respondent and the applicant, in particular by one from the respondent to the applicant on 30 December 2010 when the respondent proposed reducing the applicant's retainer to £2,000 per month. The respondent appeared in that email to seek to introduce new terms into the contract about various targets and so forth.
The judge found that two emails from the respondent to the applicant of 7 and 10 January 2011 could be regarded as repudiatory of the contract. However, the applicant did not then accept a repudiation. Then on 17 January 2011 the respondent sent an email which the Recorder said confirmed its acceptance of a commitment under the contract (see paragraph 21 of the judgment).
The applicant in fact did not work for the respondent in January 2011. However, towards the end of January 2011 the applicant sent an invoice for January 2011. The respondent refused to pay. On 8 February 2011, after this refusal to pay, the applicant purported to accept this refusal as a repudiation of breach of contract. Thereafter he sued for damages for alleged repudiation of the contract.
The Recorder's judgment is set out very carefully and clearly. At the concluding paragraph, she says that on 7 February 2011 the claimant was not entitled to treat the contract as having been repudiated. Her paragraph continues:
"In my...
To continue reading
Request your trial