CASE NAME AND CITATION Valilas v Januzaj [2014] EWCA Civ 436
COURT AND JUDGES Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Underhil, Arden and Floyd LLJ.
PARTIES Appellant/Defendant: Valdent Januzaj Respondent/Claimant: Ioannis Valilas
MATERIAL FACTS 1. The Defendant ran a dental practise, Droitwich Spa (DS), at which the Claimant worked under an oral agreement (the “Agreement”).
2. The agreement was that in return for the right to make use of the practise facilities, equipment and staff service, the Claimant would pay the Defendant 50% of his monthly receipts.
3. Most of the Claimants earnings came from his contract with the local primary care trust (PCT) in return for carrying out a specified number of ‘Units of Dental Activity’ (UDA) per year (from …show more content…
In the event that the contracted UDAs were not fulfilled, the Claimant would have to pro-ratedly refund the advance payment back to the PCT at the end of the workyear.
6. The relationship between the Claimant and Defendant deteriorated and the Claimant informed the Defendant that he would stop making payments to DS until this disagreement was resolved.
7. In Novemeber, after 3 months of no payments to DS, despite continuing operations there, the Defendant terminated the Agreement and barred the Claimant from the Defendant’s premises.
8. The Claimant commences proceedins, sueing the Defendant for damages for breach of contract and wrongful termination.
9. The Defendant held the position that he had given ample notice of the termination of the Agreement through his initial letter and that he had the right to terminate the Agreement and lodge a counterclaim given the Claimant’s failure to make payment.
QUESTIONS OF LAW/ISSUES The issues before the court are, as Underhill LJ stated in Paragraph 19:
(a) Whether there was a notice in term in the facilities contract, and, if so, how long was the period of notice to which the claimant was entitled?
(b) Was the claimant in fact given notice of …show more content…
Underhill LJ agreed with Lord Wilberforce's test in Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc (The Nanfri) [1979] despite some limitations, keeping in mind the end goal of amounting to a repudiatory breah, one must go to root of a contract. In Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd [1971] the repeated late payments were not perceived to amount to a repudiatory breach however, in Alan Auld Associates Ltd v Rick Pollard Associates [2008], Tuckey LJ held that late payments in were ‘ substantial, persistent and cynical’ and thus amounted to a repudiatory breach. In Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd (1971), Floyd LJ saw it as just as pertinent to take into consideration the practical results of a breach in order to ascertain whether it has infact gone to ‘the root of the
COURT AND JUDGES Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Underhil, Arden and Floyd LLJ.
PARTIES Appellant/Defendant: Valdent Januzaj Respondent/Claimant: Ioannis Valilas
MATERIAL FACTS 1. The Defendant ran a dental practise, Droitwich Spa (DS), at which the Claimant worked under an oral agreement (the “Agreement”).
2. The agreement was that in return for the right to make use of the practise facilities, equipment and staff service, the Claimant would pay the Defendant 50% of his monthly receipts.
3. Most of the Claimants earnings came from his contract with the local primary care trust (PCT) in return for carrying out a specified number of ‘Units of Dental Activity’ (UDA) per year (from …show more content…
In the event that the contracted UDAs were not fulfilled, the Claimant would have to pro-ratedly refund the advance payment back to the PCT at the end of the workyear.
6. The relationship between the Claimant and Defendant deteriorated and the Claimant informed the Defendant that he would stop making payments to DS until this disagreement was resolved.
7. In Novemeber, after 3 months of no payments to DS, despite continuing operations there, the Defendant terminated the Agreement and barred the Claimant from the Defendant’s premises.
8. The Claimant commences proceedins, sueing the Defendant for damages for breach of contract and wrongful termination.
9. The Defendant held the position that he had given ample notice of the termination of the Agreement through his initial letter and that he had the right to terminate the Agreement and lodge a counterclaim given the Claimant’s failure to make payment.
QUESTIONS OF LAW/ISSUES The issues before the court are, as Underhill LJ stated in Paragraph 19:
(a) Whether there was a notice in term in the facilities contract, and, if so, how long was the period of notice to which the claimant was entitled?
(b) Was the claimant in fact given notice of …show more content…
Underhill LJ agreed with Lord Wilberforce's test in Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc (The Nanfri) [1979] despite some limitations, keeping in mind the end goal of amounting to a repudiatory breah, one must go to root of a contract. In Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd [1971] the repeated late payments were not perceived to amount to a repudiatory breach however, in Alan Auld Associates Ltd v Rick Pollard Associates [2008], Tuckey LJ held that late payments in were ‘ substantial, persistent and cynical’ and thus amounted to a repudiatory breach. In Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd (1971), Floyd LJ saw it as just as pertinent to take into consideration the practical results of a breach in order to ascertain whether it has infact gone to ‘the root of the