The Court held that a finance broker claiming fees under a finance consultancy agreement must prove it performed the contractually defined 'Work', which required not merely compiling a credit submission but submitting it to and discussing it with those financial institutions that, in the broker's professional judgment, may be interested in offering an appropriate funding solution. On the facts, the broker failed to discharge its onus because it adduced no evidence explaining its choice of only two lenders, its lack of follow-up discussions, or the exercise of any professional judgment, and the Court declined to draw favourable inferences where the broker's principal could have but did not give evidence on those matters. In obiter, the Court would have held that the Final Payment fee was not triggered merely by delivery of a conditional indicative offer, and that the indicative offer at a 1.24% higher interest rate was not 'generally in accordance with' the agreement.
The full text is available to signed-in members.