MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE
Mr Januzaj (Defendant) ran the Droitwich Spa Dental Practice (DSDP) from which Mr. Valilas (Claimant) practiced. It should be noted that Mr Valilas was neither an employee nor a partner in the practice. During the period, Mr Valilas worked under an oral agreement between which at the time was an acceptable arrangement.
Based on the terms of their oral agreement, Mr Valilas would pay to Mr Januzaj 50% of his monthly earnings in return for his use of the DSDP facilities, this included staff, equipment, facilitates and all other necessities. Most Mr Valilas’ earnings came from his contract with the local Primary Care Trust (PCT) which is a part of the National Health Service (NHS). His contractual arrangement with …show more content…
The relationship between Mr Valilas and Mr Januzaj later deteriorated and Mr Valilas fell behind on his UDAs. Mr Valilas told Mr Januzaj that he would stop making further monthly advance payments to the DSDP until the disagreement between them was resolved. The disagreement between the parties stemmed from many things inclusive of the Valilas declining to sign a “standard –form “associate agreement” provided by Mr Januzaj.
Based on the postscript of his letter to Mr Januzaj, Mr Valilas stated that he was prepared to pay on a ‘performed UDA’ basis each month. The reasoning for this decision as stated in the letter was based on the lack of trust between parties and his primary concern that Mr Januzaj would not pay back a relevant proportion of the payments paid over in advance in the event that Mr Valilas failed to meet his contractual target for the year with the PCT (as was by then a real …show more content…
He went on to say that the claimant's letter of 21 September 2010 represented an assurance to the defendant of satisfaction of his due entitlements arising from the PCT contract.
Lady Justice Arden Paragraph 62: In the present case, in my judgment, the judge attached considerable importance to the parties' knowledge of the likely effect of the breach. Importantly, he made an important finding ("the likelihood finding") that Mr Januzaj knew that the likely result of Mr Valilas' actions was delayed payment, not a refusal to make payment
All things being equal the judges inferred that historically, since the claimant had always lived up to his contractual relationship with the Practice (since 2006) and he had always completed his UDA each and every year this would have continued. Further, they carried that inference to suggest that a question of refunds would not have arisen and that the Defendant would have been paid fully. It would seem that the break down in the relationship caused the distrust and the current issue before the
Mr Januzaj (Defendant) ran the Droitwich Spa Dental Practice (DSDP) from which Mr. Valilas (Claimant) practiced. It should be noted that Mr Valilas was neither an employee nor a partner in the practice. During the period, Mr Valilas worked under an oral agreement between which at the time was an acceptable arrangement.
Based on the terms of their oral agreement, Mr Valilas would pay to Mr Januzaj 50% of his monthly earnings in return for his use of the DSDP facilities, this included staff, equipment, facilitates and all other necessities. Most Mr Valilas’ earnings came from his contract with the local Primary Care Trust (PCT) which is a part of the National Health Service (NHS). His contractual arrangement with …show more content…
The relationship between Mr Valilas and Mr Januzaj later deteriorated and Mr Valilas fell behind on his UDAs. Mr Valilas told Mr Januzaj that he would stop making further monthly advance payments to the DSDP until the disagreement between them was resolved. The disagreement between the parties stemmed from many things inclusive of the Valilas declining to sign a “standard –form “associate agreement” provided by Mr Januzaj.
Based on the postscript of his letter to Mr Januzaj, Mr Valilas stated that he was prepared to pay on a ‘performed UDA’ basis each month. The reasoning for this decision as stated in the letter was based on the lack of trust between parties and his primary concern that Mr Januzaj would not pay back a relevant proportion of the payments paid over in advance in the event that Mr Valilas failed to meet his contractual target for the year with the PCT (as was by then a real …show more content…
He went on to say that the claimant's letter of 21 September 2010 represented an assurance to the defendant of satisfaction of his due entitlements arising from the PCT contract.
Lady Justice Arden Paragraph 62: In the present case, in my judgment, the judge attached considerable importance to the parties' knowledge of the likely effect of the breach. Importantly, he made an important finding ("the likelihood finding") that Mr Januzaj knew that the likely result of Mr Valilas' actions was delayed payment, not a refusal to make payment
All things being equal the judges inferred that historically, since the claimant had always lived up to his contractual relationship with the Practice (since 2006) and he had always completed his UDA each and every year this would have continued. Further, they carried that inference to suggest that a question of refunds would not have arisen and that the Defendant would have been paid fully. It would seem that the break down in the relationship caused the distrust and the current issue before the