Kerish International Motors Agency (Appellant) v Opel Automobile GmbH (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0136

Parties

Appellant(s)

Kerish International Motors Agency

Respondent(s)

Opel Automobile GmBH

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in refusing to admit further evidence or remit the case for reconsideration, given developments in Palestinian law following the first-instance judgment?

Facts

The Appellant, a Palestinian automobile dealer in the West Bank, was appointed by the Respondent to act as its non-exclusive distributor in the Palestinian National Authority territory, pursuant to an agreement governed by English law. Following the Respondent’s termination of their agreement by notice, the Appellant brought proceedings seeking compensation as a commercial agent under Article 15 of the Palestinian Commercial Agents Law, relying on a clause in the agreement which provided for compensation “if expressly mandated by national law”. The High Court dismissed the claim, finding that “national law” meant Palestinian law and the Appellant was not a commercial agent within the scope of the relevant Palestinian law. The Appellant appealed the commercial agent finding. Following the High Court’s judgment, a number of Palestinian court decisions were promulgated which addressed the commercial agent issue. Prior to the Court of Appeal hearing, the Respondent applied to adduce as fresh evidence an expert report commenting on these cases, and the Appellant subsequently made a contingent application seeking to adduce its own fresh evidence if the Respondent’s evidence was admitted. The Respondent then withdrew its fresh evidence application, and the Appellant applied to remit the case to the High Court for reconsideration in light of the further Palestinian court decisions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused the Appellant’s application to remit on the basis that (a) there was no extant application to adduce existing Palestinian materials, (b) it was speculative whether the prospective Palestinian court decisions would assist the Appellant’s case and (c) as the timing of such decisions was uncertain, it would be contrary to the interests of finality to remit case for indefinite period. The Appellant appeals to the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeal’s procedural approach to the fresh evidence and remission applications.