I-Remit Incorporated v Far East Express Remittance Ltd

An expert determination agreed to be final and binding, subject to manifest error, may be challenged only for a plain error in the determination itself. An alleged inaccuracy in source data supplied for the determination is not, without more, manifest error. Where the parties have warranted the accuracy of that data, the party alleging inaccuracy bears the burden of proving it. A contractual provision stating that a distributor is not obliged to make payment before receiving funds does not necessarily prohibit payment before receipt where the distributor has received valid instructions.

The claimant operated a remittance distribution business in the Philippines. The defendant collected remittances in the United Kingdom and instructed the claimant to distribute them. Following a dispute over the balance due, the parties agreed that accountants would reconcile their transactions and that the determination would be final and binding except for manifest error.

The accountants identified a balance payable by the defendant. The defendant disputed the accuracy of the underlying database, alleged that the determination contained manifest error, and counterclaimed for service charges, telephone-card receipts and other sums. The principal issues were the construction of the distribution agreement, the scope of the manifest-error exception, the accuracy of the database, and the counterclaims.

1. The claimant was entitled to judgment for the sum claimed. The defendant’s counterclaims were dismissed.

2. The agreement did not create a principal and agent relationship. Clauses 3.3 and 4, properly construed, protected the claimant by relieving it of any obligation to distribute remittances until the required funds and charges had been received. They did not prohibit it from distributing a remittance before receipt of funds where the defendant had instructed it to do so. The defendant’s contrary construction rewrote the agreement (paras [16]–[17]).

3. The accountants’ determination was intended to be final and binding. Manifest error meant a plain error made in the determination itself. It could include a failure by the accountants to use the agreed data, but did not extend to an alleged inaccuracy in that data. The accuracy of the database was instead governed by the claimant’s representation and warranty. The defendant therefore had to prove the alleged inaccuracy (paras [30]–[34]).

4. The defendant failed to establish that the database included unauthorised, duplicated or improperly cancelled transactions. The contemporaneous records that were available supported the database. The discrepancies between records were explained by differences between United Kingdom and Manila time and by delays between encoding and release. The evidence also established that transactions had been released without funds being received in advance on a significant scale (paras [52]–[70], [71]–[91]).

5. The defendant failed to prove an agreement for repayment of service charges or that payments derived from telephone-card sales were made by mistake. The evidence was inconsistent, the records were inadequate, and the defendant could not establish the amount or character of the alleged overpayments. The further claims concerning reverse transactions had already been credited in the claimant’s calculation (paras [93]–[108]).

6. The application to adduce late evidence alleging fabrication of deposit slips was refused. The evidence had been available for months, the allegation had not been properly developed, and the proposed material provided no sufficient evidential basis for admission at that stage (paras [109]–[119]).

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.