Claims Management Ltd vs Richard & Dawn Sargent

This case concerned a dispute over the payment terms and interest in an insurance claim management contract between Claims Management Ltd and Richard & Dawn Sargent.

• Claims Management Ltd filed for summary judgment to claim interest on unpaid fees.
• The defendants argued the fees were not due until they received the insurance settlement.
• The court found the defendants had an arguable defense and refused the summary judgment.

The plaintiff, Claims Management Ltd, provided claims management services to the defendants, Richard & Dawn Sargent, after a fire damaged their premises in 2020. The defendants engaged the plaintiff to manage their insurance claim, which was settled for just under a million pounds.

On 22 August 2022, the plaintiff invoiced the defendants for £74,372.93, calculated as 10% of the settlement amount, minus an interim payment. The invoice was due on 21 September 2022. When the defendants failed to pay, the plaintiff initiated legal proceedings on 8 December 2022 and applied for summary judgment on 10 February 2023.

By 29 March 2023, the defendants received the balance of the insurance settlement and paid the plaintiff's fee on 5 April 2023. The remaining issue was the plaintiff's claim for interest from 21 September 2022, at 3% above the base rate, and costs.

The court examined the contractual terms, which stated that fees were payable upon receipt of the settlement. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's fee was not due until they received the insurance money, making the summary judgment application premature.

The plaintiff contended that the defendants were estopped from claiming the fee was not due, citing previous dealings where the defendants paid interim invoices promptly. The plaintiff argued that costs and interest should follow since the principal sum was paid.

The court found that the defendants had an arguable defense, noting that payment terms indicated fees were due upon receipt of the settlement. The court also highlighted that the plaintiff's estoppel argument was not adequately addressed in earlier submissions.

Ultimately, the court refused the summary judgment application, determining that the interest claim and costs should be resolved at trial. The court urged both parties to seek an amicable resolution to avoid further costs.

Legal representatives: Mr. Sinton BL (instructed by Fisher Law) for the Plaintiff, Mr. Fletcher BL (instructed by Tughans Solicitors) for the Defendants.

Judicial Panel: Master Harvey

Case Citation Reference: [2023] NIQB 45