Epoq’s legal action against DAS concludes with High Court dismissal, raising questions on contract interpretation.
- The court case revolved around a dispute on contractual agreements, where Epoq sought £18 per customer instead of £1.
- Involved parties included Epoq, a legal services provider, and DAS, a legal expenses insurer.
- The judgement highlighted a lack of misrepresentation by DAS, according to the court’s findings.
- Potential financial impacts for Epoq were deemed minor, as stated by the deputy High Court judge.
The recent legal battle between online legal services provider Epoq and legal expenses insurer DAS came to a head as the High Court dismissed Epoq’s claims. This case had its origins in a disagreement over the fee Epoq charged DAS for access to their legal services. Specifically, Epoq contended that it should have charged £18 per customer per year, contrary to the approximate £1 it actually received from DAS.
Epoq’s services were packaged together with DAS’s legal expenses insurance, which was often added to other insurance policies. This arrangement was initially thought by Epoq to constitute ‘scheme business’, a categorisation impacting pricing. However, Epoq only realised in 2019 that it was not, until which time it had charged DAS a mere £1.03 per customer annually regarding services to WTWSL.
WTWSL, trading as BCarm, used Epoq’s services alongside DAS’s offerings to aid smaller and mid-sized businesses. The legal contention was that WTWSL’s access fees should have been higher under what Epoq argued was a mutual or unilateral mistake about the agreement terms. Nicholas Vineall QC, who presided as deputy High Court judge, refuted these claims, citing clear contract terms stipulating the £1 annual fee.
Judge Vineall further dismissed Epoq’s arguments of being misled by DAS, noting that there was neither an overarching representation by DAS nor any clause violations regarding misrepresentation. Consequently, the judge determined that Epoq’s claims would inherently fail based on the written agreements.
In assessing the financial aspects, the judge found no substantial loss that would necessitate rectifying damages. It was concluded that Epoq did not incur additional costs from user access rates, regardless of their frequency, which maintained Epoq’s financial status unchanged.
Judge Vineall projected that, had Epoq’s case been successful, they might have seen, at best, a modest increase to about £2.50 per year per user for the limited number of affected customer years. However, evidence suggested minimal profitability for DAS in its dealings with WTWSL, making any recompense negligible.
The High Court’s decision underscores the complexities of contractual agreements and the critical importance of clear terms.
