- Disclosed principals—escaping liability? (Bell v Ivy Technology Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Commercial analysis: The Court of Appeal, while accepting that Mr Bell had a very cogent case that the terms of the share purchase agreement (SPA) excluded his liability, it was found that there was a real prospect that, construed in light of the admissible factual matrix, it did not. The court further declined to determine whether Ivy was estopped from claiming against Mr Bell without an investigation of the facts, and decided that the question of whether Ivy had irrevocably elected to bring its claim against Mr Martin as principal was unsuitable for summary determination, noting that it was not clear beyond argument that a third party is required to elect between suing the agent and suing the principal. Written by Emily McWilliams, barrister at Quadrant Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial