A LAW firm from Hampshire overturned a landmark Court of Appeal decision at the Supreme Court in a row over the commission of a multi-million-pound estate sale. 

Phillips Law, based in Basingstoke, succeeded in its appeal to the UK Supreme Court on behalf of its clients who were in dispute with an agent over the payment of a commission. 

Previously it had been ruled that Foxpace Ltd owed Philip Barton £435,000 for his part in the sale of Nash House, in London. 

However, the Supreme Court overturned the appeal decision in a landmark order on Wednesday, January 26 - meaning Foxpace no longer has to pay the money. 

Max Hope, director at Phillips Law, said: "This has been a landmark case with important points of contract and restitution law that needed to be clarified following the 2019 Court of Appeal decision.

"We’re delighted that our clients trusted Phillips Law to successfully appeal this to the Supreme Court and we are very pleased with the result.”    

The case, Barton v Gwyn-Jones and others [2019] EWCA Civ 1999, was regarding the sale of Nash House, in Acton, an estate owned by the late Timothy Gwyn-Jones.

READ MORE: Brighton Hill murder: Three men found guilty of killing father-of-two

Foxpace Ltd, the executors of the estate, entered into an oral agreement with agent Mr Barton to pay him £1.2m if he introduced a purchaser who then bought Nash House for £6.5m.

Foxpace claimed there was no provision for any payment to Mr Barton if the house was sold for less.

Mr Barton found a buyer who ultimately purchased Nash House for £6m.

Later Foxpace refused to pay Mr Barton £1.2m and instead offered £400,000 as "a goodwill gesture", which he refused and approached the courts.

The case dealt with widely reported points of contract and restitution law and affects the drafting of “no win no fee” and contingency fee type agreements.

In the High Court, Mr Barton claimed compensation from Foxpace because, under the terms of his agreement, he should receive £1.2m irrespective of the price the estate was sold for.

Mr Barton also argued that he was entitled to a restitution award under the law of unjust enrichment.

SEE ALSO: Dankworth Road, Brighton Hill: Three arrested people released on bail

The court rejected the first arguments and held that under the agreement's express terms, the payment of £1.2m was conditional and only to be paid if Nash House was sold for £6.5m.

On the alternative argument, the court found that while Foxpace had been enriched, Mr Barton’s claim must fail to avoid an “obvious interference” with the contractual terms.

But later an appeal court ordered Foxpace to award Mr Barton 7.25 per cent (£435,000) of the purchase price paid for Nash House.

Foxpace later went to the Supreme Court, which overturned the appeal decision, meaning the money no longer has to be paid. 

The appeal was brought by Max Hope and Simon Arneaud of Phillips Law, with Andrew Twigger KC and Robert Sterling as leading and junior counsel.