LM-2023-000035 - [2025] EWHC 1989 (Comm)

I therefore find that Xtellus was entitled to rely on the representations made by the Defendant, that Dominik Leszczyński had authority to bind it and that in all the circumstances Dominik Leszczyński was able to bind the Defendant because the Defendant gave him ostensible authority to do so. If I am wrong about that, I deal with ratification below. First, I turn to the next stage of the chronology.

What happened after the Mandate was signed may be important for 2 reasons. First, it will cast light on what Xtellus did to earn its fee and allow me to determine if what was done was what the Mandate anticipated would be done in return for the payment. Secondly, it will show if the Defendant (the counterparty) ratified the Mandate if (contrary to my findings) Dominik Leszczyński lacked actual or apparent authority to bind the Defendant.