CASE NAME AND CITATION: Valilas v Januzaj [2014]EWCA Civ 346 COURTS AND JUDGES: (Court of Appeal) 1- Lady Justice Arden, 2- Lord Justice Underhill, 3- Lord justice Floyd. PARTIES: 1- Valilas 2- Januzaj MATERIAL FACTS: Two parties and both were dentist. Defandent ran the dental practice (DSDP) from which the claimant worked. An oral agreement between them, under terms of the agreement that the claiment would pay 50% of his monthly receipts to the defendant for the use of facilities. Later the relationship between the both parties deteriorated and the claimant fell behind on his UDA. Due to this situation claimant missed three month …show more content…
The claimant made a deliberate choice to depart from the aggreed arrangements as regards his primary obligation under the contract at the year end he had to make a repayment to PCT any consequential clawback from the defendant occur at that point, claimant stance in september meant that he would retain the full PCT payments and pay nothing to the defendant untill a final accounting occured,where in october the defendant would only receive a reduced …show more content…
Mr januzaj knew that the likely result of Mr Valilas ' actions was delayed payment not a refusal to make payment. It was only due to the breakdown in the trust between the parties that the claimant was refusing to pay fully in advance as per the agreement. Mr Valilas made it clear he wouldwork to clear the shortfall in UDAs and to pay what was due when that was established. Mr Januzaj knew that it was likely he could complete the required number of UDAs.There is no suggestion that he should not have accepted Mr Valila 's promise to pay what was due. LJ Arden based her reasoning on two cases cited, Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisan Kaisha Ltd and Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd . LJ Arden also agreed with LJ Floyd and dissmiss the appeal, Mr Januzaj was not deprived of substantially the whole of the benefit of the contract. The only likely loss was the loss of the use of the money in the meantime. Claimant wanted to continue starting work at DSDP but not agreed to pay advance payments and last late 3 month payments were just delayed he do not denny to