SAGAL (TRADING AS BUNZ UK) V ATELIER BUNZ GMBH

[2008] EWHC 789 (Comm), Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, His Honour Judge Mackie QC, 17 April 2008

Agency – Whether agent was “commercial agent” – Whether claimant entitled to compensation for termination of agency agreement – Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, regulations 2 and 17

The claimant was appointed as agent for the defendant for the sale of jewellery. The relationship lasted for over three years, and it was then terminated. The claimant sought compensation under Regulation 17 of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, calculated at £227,304. The definition of “commercial agent” in Regulation 2 was “a self-employed intermediary who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of another person (the principal), or to negotiate and conclude the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of and in the name of that principal.” Applying the test that if the sale or purchase of goods was negotiated by the intermediary in its own interest rather than on behalf of the principal, the intermediary is not a Commercial Agent, HHJ Mackie QC held that the claimant was not a commercial agent: he had no authority to negotiate sales.