Unjust enrichment, NOM clauses and advisory scope (RMK v Euronav)
Commercial analysis: In RMK Maritime (Europe) Ltd and another company v CMB.Tech NV (previously known as Euronav NV), the Commercial Court dismissed a quantum meruit claim for nearly US$11.7m brought by RMK seeking payment for alleged extra-contractual services. Mr Justice Henshaw held that: (1) The services fell within the scope of the parties’ advisory agreement, and (2) In any event, unjust enrichment could not be used to circumvent a detailed contractual framework reinforced by a no oral modification (NOM) clause and an express variation mechanism. The decision is a reaffirmation of contractual primacy in sophisticated commercial relationships. It provides important guidance on the interaction between unjust enrichment and contract, the legal effect of NOM clauses, and the risks of broadly drafted advisory scopes. For commercial practitioners, the case underscores a simple point: if additional services are to be paid for, they must be agreed and documented at the time. This article is written by Zara Yusuf, barrister at Three Stone.