Payment for services: Implied terms and unjust enrichment

Barton and Others v Morris and Another [2023] UKSC 3

In Barton and Others v Morris and Another [2023] UKSC 3, the Supreme Court held, by a majority, that the claimant was not entitled to a fee for introducing a purchaser who bought a property owned by the defendant for £6 million. The contract between the parties was held to be one which entitled the claimant to a fee of £1.2 million if the property was sold for £6.5 million to a purchaser introduced by the claimant. There was held to be no express or implied term of the contract which entitled the claimant to a fee in the event that the property was sold for less than £6.5 million. Further, the claimant was held not to be entitled to bring a claim in unjust enrichment in order to recover the reasonable value of the services which he had rendered because such a claim was held to be inconsistent with the terms of the contract between the parties. The principal significance of the case lies in the consideration given by the Supreme Court to the relationship between a claim in contract and a claim in unjust enrichment and also in the extent to which a court is willing to imply a term in law in relation to the payment of a fee in a contract between a professional supplier of services and a client.