Mediation & other forms of ADR — practical guidance for resolving disputes outside of court
We discuss what mediation and other forms of ADR are, their benefits, when they’re most effective and how courts view parties who refuse to engage in them.
A problem can arise where two (or more) recruitment agencies pursue one hirer for an introduction fee in relation to the placement of a permanent candidate.
Clearly, the hirer will not want to pay two introduction fees for one candidate and the Courts will try and avoid that outcome where possible. So, the question arises: which recruitment agency is entitled to be paid?
The question may be answered by the terms of any written contract that is in place between the recruitment agency and the hirer and so that should always be the starting point.
Indeed, if there is no contractual relationship at all between an agency and a hirer and the candidate’s details were provided speculatively but ignored (or rejected) then it is difficult to see how that agency would be entitled to a fee in any circumstances.
However, these types of situations are not often clear-cut in practice.
The “effective cause” principle
The Courts have developed the “effective cause” principle, a primary aim of which is to try and avoid hirers being obliged to pay an introduction fee to more than one recruitment agency.
The effective cause principle isn’t limited to just recruitment agency relationships but applies to many other kinds of agency relationships too, such as estate agents. However, this article focuses on how the principle applies in relation to permanent recruitment introduction fees.
Subject to the terms of any written agreement between the agency and the hirer, a recruitment agent’s entitlement to an introduction fee generally depends on whether the services that the agent provided were the “effective cause” of the candidate being placed with the hirer.
To determine whether an agent's work was the "effective cause" of the engagement of the candidate, the question is effectively whether the recruitment agency claiming the fee is the one that actually brought about the relationship between the candidate and the hirer.
Whether an agent is an "effective cause" will depend on the facts of each case and so there are no hard and fast rules, unfortunately. However, it is to be noted that the Courts are generally unwilling to find that an agency should be entitled to an introduction fee if it has merely provided the hirer with the candidate’s details and done little else when another agency has actively introduced the candidate to the hirer and done all the hard work in arranging an interview, negotiating between the parties with the result that the candidate is then engaged by the hirer.
How to try and avoid these types of difficulties
From a recruitment agency’s perspective, well drafted terms and conditions of business are very important, as a clause reflecting the “effective cause” principle will generally only be implied where the written terms of any contract do not deal with the point.
An agency’s terms and conditions should be brought to the hirer’s attention (and accepted by them) right at the outset of the business relationship and before any candidates’ details are provided to a potential hirer.
Recruitment agencies should also try to ensure that the introduction of any candidates is actively followed up (for example to arrange interviews) in order to stand a better chance of demonstrating, if needs be, that they are the “effective cause” of a candidate being placed with a hirer.
From a hirer’s perspective, it is sensible to clearly and promptly reject a duplicate candidate introduction from an unsuccessful recruitment agency so that there is less scope for ambiguity as to which agency effected the introduction.
These steps won’t guarantee that there won’t be any disputes about which agency is the “effective cause” of a candidate being recruited, but they can help to reduce the chances of such disputes arising.
If you wish to discuss any issues raised in this blog, please contact Oliver or a member of our Litigation Team.
Related insights
How retailers can protect their business from false or misleading claims — key legal & practical considerations
We outline the steps that retailers can take to contain an emerging online issue and the legal remedies available for responding to false statements.
International arbitration — the scope of supervisory jurisdiction & anti-suit injunctions following Star Hydro
We outline the Court of Appeal’s decision, consider how the Supreme Court is likely to approach the appeal and highlight five key takeaways.
How the CJC’s litigation funding reforms aim to restore certainty after PACCAR
We examine the CJC’s recommendations and their implications for funders, claimants and practitioners navigating this evolving area.
3 potential ways generative AI could lead to defamation claims
We explain where generative AI has the potential to damage individuals’ reputations and examine relevant case law from other jurisdictions.
Brabners secures favourable policy construction judgment for Acasta
Our award-winning litigation team has secured a High Court judgment in favour of Acasta European Insurance Company Limited.
London expansion & record revenues drive next phase of growth at Brabners
We’re delighted to announce the opening of a new office in London, marking a major milestone at the end of a year defined by strong financial performance.
PR under fire — what happens when clients sue?
We explore the types of claims that PR firms can face when an initial complaint escalates and outline some practical steps to manage the risks.
Navigating partnership conflict in law firms — 10 top tips to prevent disputes
We share ten top tips for preventing partnership disputes and guidance on recognising the warning signs and responding effectively if conflict does arise.
HyNot judicial review decision highlights the importance of acting promptly
We explore how the Court considered the requirement of promptness, the arguments made and what this means for claimants considering judicial review.
Lights, camera, litigation — The Lost King case
We explore the legal and reputational implications of dramatising ‘real life’ events for the screen.
English Devolution & Community Empowerment Bill — what it means for retail leases
We explore what the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill means in practice and how its reforms may affect both retail tenants and landlords.
Employment tribunal early conciliation period doubles to 12 weeks
Individuals who want to take an employment case to a tribunal must first take part in a longer conciliation process.
Restrictive covenant dispute — Brabners secures successful judgment for Docutech Office Solutions Ltd
Our litigation team achieved a successful outcome for Docutech Office Solutions Ltd in a major claim against a former employee and his new employer.
How the courts treat online defamation — removal order dismissed against domain name registrar
Our litigation team look an online defamation case study and how to take legal action after being subject to online defamation or harassment.
Probate costs recoverable in litigation: SCCO clarifies its position in key costs ruling
Andrew Tindall examines new guidance from the Senior Courts Costs Office on recovering probate costs.
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry announces publication of the first part of its final report
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry Chair has announced that the first part of his final report will be published this Summer.
Defamation and harassment on social media — what to do if you’re a victim of online abuse
Our litigation team explores recent cases and what to do if you’re subjected to online defamation or harassment.
Half-secret commissions and informed consent between brokers and customers
We explore how the Courts treat customers who have been charged “half secret” commissions by their energy brokers.
Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal clarifies appropriate use of Without Prejudice labels and SLAPP guidance
Solicitor Ashley Hurst found himself at the centre of regulatory action brought by the SRA.
How to deal with a negative online review about your business
Our litigation team explores the options businesses have when it comes to dealing with negative online reviews — whether the review is honest or dishonest.
Media and communications claims — could pre-action dispute resolution become compulsory?
Here, commercial litigator Glyn Lancefield outlines the proposed changes to the pre-action protocol for media and communications claims.
Arbitration Act 2025 — new legislation to strengthen UK’s position as dispute resolution leader
Experienced commercial litigator Matthew Moy explains what arbitration is and how the AA 2025 will help to clarify and refine key aspects of the arbitration process by improving efficiency, fairness and legal certainty.
Adverse possession claims — significant judgment a ‘win’ for practicality in boundary disputes
The UK Supreme Court's judgment in Brown v Ridley and Another has important implications for adverse possession claims — particularly in boundary disputes.
High Court sides with claimants in shocking moth infestation fraud case
The High Court ruled in favour of Iya Patarkatsishvili and Yevhen Hunyak in their case against William Woodward-Fisher on claims of fraudulent misrepresentation concerning a severe moth infestation.