![LM-2023-000035 - [2025] EWHC 1989 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Q. Conclusion
It follows that the Claimant is entitled to judgment in the sum claimed. I will leave it to the parties to work out the detail of interest and any ancillary matters.
- Heading
- His Honour Judge Bird
- The Issues
- The Hearing
- The Law
- Chronology Part I: up to and including the execution of the Mandate General context
- The Mandate
- Findings on the first issue
- The second issue: apparent authority
- Did the Defendant represent that Dominik Leszczyński had authority to act as its agent?
- Was it reasonable for Xtellus to rely on the representations made by the Defendant?
- Conclusion on issue 2
- Chronology Part II: Immediately post signature
- Chronology Part III: August onwards
- Chronology Part IV: The apparent watershed and fresh start
- Chronology Part V: Termination of the Mandate and subsequent events
- Issue 2: ratification as an alternative
- N. Issue 3: The correct interpretation of the Mandate
- O. Issue 4
- P . Witnesses and their statements
- Conclusions