In a recent court decision, the High Court has dismissed the claim made by Epoq, an online legal services provider, against legal expenses insurer DAS.
Epoq argued that DAS owed them an annual payment of £18 per customer, rather than the nominal £1 they had been receiving. This claim was based on their belief that the services provided to Walk the Walk Solutions Ltd (WTWSL), trading as BCarm, were part of a ‘scheme business’ and should therefore have commanded a higher fee.
DAS’s legal expenses insurance often included additional services like those from Epoq, and according to Epoq, these should have been billed at higher rates akin to other distribution methods. However, DAS maintained a fixed fee agreement of £1.03 per customer per year in relation to WTWSL clients.
Judge Nicholas Vineall QC, presiding as deputy High Court judge, concluded that the contracts explicitly stated the agreed fee, thus rejecting Epoq’s contention of a misunderstanding. Epoq, despite its arguments, failed to prove that DAS was aware or should have been aware of any misunderstanding.
Epoq also raised claims of misrepresentation against DAS, contending there was an implied assurance that their services were part of a broader scheme. The court found no evidence of such representations. The misrepresentation claims were dismissed due to specific clauses in the agreements that shielded DAS from such allegations.
On the issue of financial loss, the judge highlighted that Epoq did not suffer any monetary loss beyond the agreement. There was no evidence Epoq incurred additional costs due to the frequency of service access by users. Thus, any claims of financial disadvantage were unsubstantiated.
Moreover, the court noted that even if Epoq’s claim had been successful, the financial gain would have been minor. The most optimistic estimate indicated a potential increase to just £2.50 per customer annually, applying to a small number of user-years, resulting in what Judge Vineall described as a ‘very modest’ financial implication.
Epoq’s inability to secure a higher fee emphasises the importance of clear contractual agreements and understanding the terms agreed upon. The decision reinforces the importance of detailed and precise contract language to prevent similar claims in the future.
The High Court’s ruling underscores the necessity for explicit contractual clarity and vigilance in business agreements, particularly in the dynamic field of online service partnerships.
