‘The appeal raises what we were told was an important issue as to the scope of the duty of solicitors instructed on behalf of both the proposed mortgagor and mortgagee of property.’ Patten LJ, Sir Stanley Burnton  EWCA Civ 1147 Bailii Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 England and Wales Professional Negligence Updated: 06 January … Continue reading Goldsmith Williams Solicitors v E.Surv Ltd: CA 11 Nov 2015
Blake J  EWHC 820 (QB) Bailii Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 81 2(1) England and Wales Negligence, Personal Injury Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545353
The bank claimant had successfully recovered a substantial sum from the first defendants, its advisers, after it had lost money in a development. The first defendants now sought a contribution from the second defendant valuers. Edwards-Stuart J  EWHC 2217 (TCC) Bailii Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 Professional Negligence, Damages Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: … Continue reading The Governor and Company of The Bank of Ireland v Faithful and Gould Ltd: TCC 10 Jul 2014
Application for contrbution to damages.  EWHC 2341 (TCC) Bailii Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 England and Wales Negligence Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513785
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Compensation SEX DISCRIMINATION – Compensation APPEAL Council and a charity both supplied members to a recruitment panel which victimised the Claimant – Tribunal makes a joint and several award, declining to ‘apportion’ liability to the Claimant as between the respondentsHeld, upholding the Tribunal but for different reasons, that both were jointly … Continue reading London Borough of Hackney v Sivanandan and Others: EAT 27 May 2011
countryweddingsEAT072013 EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Consultation and other informationWhere an Employment Tribunal makes orders for compensation in tort against Respondents jointly or jointly and severally, it has no power to apportion liability between the Respondents. The Employment Tribunal can do nothing other than to make an order for joint or joint and several liability, … Continue reading Country Weddings Ltd v Crossman and Others (Transfer of Undertakings : Consultation and Other Information): EAT 30 Apr 2013
The claimants had been found liable for mis-valuation of a property. They now sought a contribution from the solicitors acting uunder the mortgage saying that had they acted properly, they would have alerted the lender, and in turn the claimant of circumstances requiring extra care before a loan was made. Held: It was not possible … Continue reading E.Surv Ltd v Goldsmith Williams Solicitors: ChD 10 Apr 2014
A child aged three had been injured as a passenger in her mother’s car when it was hit by another negligently driven vehicle. The mother appealed against a finding that she was 25% contributorily negligent in that the child seat used had been inappropriate. Held: The appeal failed. The judge had approached the matter correctly. … Continue reading Williams v Williams (The Estate of): CA 30 Apr 2013
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Contribution PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure (1) An employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine claims for contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 between persons jointly or concurrently liable for damage caused by an act of unlawful discrimination. Nor in any event does the 1978 Act create such … Continue reading Sunderland City Council v Brennan and Others: EAT 2 May 2012
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claims for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation as to the suitability for deveopment of two former fire service properties. The court had said that a settlement with co-tortfeasors operated to settle also this matter. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The judge’s conclusion was plainly correct. Longmore, Ryder, … Continue reading Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others: CA 14 Nov 2013
The claimant was injured working for the appellants. The appellants now appealed the finding that they were responsible saying that other factors contributed to the injury, and in particular that he had fallen at home. The claimant said that that fall was itself a result of the original injury. Held: An application of the ‘but … Continue reading Environment Agency v Ellis: CA 17 Oct 2008
The claimant had leant money on a property fraudulently overvalued by an employee of the now insolvent first defendant. A contribution order had been agreed by the solicitors. The court heard applications by the claimants and the solicitors against the insolvent company. Held: Given the nature and size of the fraud, it was inevitable and … Continue reading Nationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (HLl) Ltd (T/A Dunlop Heywood Lorenz) and Cobbetts: ComC 18 Feb 2009
Whether the 1978 Act has extraterritorial effect. . .
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
The claimant had paid money for a property, but the seller was a fraudster and no money or title was recovered. The claimant sued both his conveyancers and the solicitors who had acted for the fraudster, in each case innocently. The defendants each . .
The court considered various cross claims between the firm of solicitors, now in administration,and their insurers after the insurance company had met claims by former clients. . .
A senior employee of Charter had fraudulently spent substantial sums with City Index. City Index had paid out on a claim of knowing receipt, and sought contributions from directors of Charter and their auditors, saying that they had known of the . .
There had been a settlement of proceedings for libel brought by Lord Aldington against Mr Nigel Watts and Count Nikolai Tolstoy. Lord Aldington had obtained judgment for andpound;1.5 million in damages against both defendants following a trial. . .
The court was asked whether a defendant vendor of shares in a company, who is sued by the purchaser for breach of the warranties in the share sale agreement, can seek a contribution, pursuant to section 1 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act . .
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Parties
The Claimant brought proceedings against the First Respondents under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, partly arising out of alleged harassment by the Appellant, a former . .
The deceased had died in an accident whilst filming in Spain for the defendants. The plaintiff personal representatives sought damages here, while the defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction under the 1968 Convention, and said that the . .
Defendant employer’s claim for contribution to damages for fall at work from land owner. . .
An employee of the claimant had fraudulently spent several million pounds of the claimant’s money on personal bets through the defendant company. The claimant said that the defendants knew the origin of the funds and were liable to repay them. . .
The claimant had been found liable to pay damages for personal injury, and now sought contribution from the defendants. The defendants said that they were out of time since the contribution action had been commenced more than 2 years after the . .
The claimant solicitors sought contributions from counsel to the damages they had been obliged to pay to their client in negligence.
Held: Underhill J said: ‘My task is not to seek to decide definitively whether LL were liable in negligence to . .
Niru contracted to buy lead from Milestone, to be paid for in a letter of credit, against certifying documents produced for the purpose. Mr Mahdavi, the individual behind Milestone, procured CAI to finance the acquisition of warrants to be retained . .
The claimant had contracted to purchase lead from some of the defendants. There were delays in payment but when funds were made available they should have been repaid. An incorrect bill of lading was presented. The bill certified that the goods had . .
The claimant had suffered a vicious physical assault from which the claimant’s employers should have protected him, and an incompetently performed surgical operation. Three psychiatrists agreed that the aetiology of the claimant’s very severe . .
The plaintiff crossed road at a pelican crossing. The lights were against him but one car had stopped. As he passed that car he was struck by another in the second lane and again by a car coming the other way. The judge had held the three equally . .
The claimant had pursued an action for damages for professional negligence against a hospital treating his broken tibia. He now sought damages after the defendant firm of solicitors acting for him in the first action had, he said, failed to obtain . .
Leave to amend was given to the defendant to add a claim for a contribution. It was not an issue of fact. The statute did not imply any assumption that the defendant would would not maintain a defence. Matters of foreign law were not part of the . .
Shipping – acquisition of ship – recommendation – duty in contract – negligent recommendation – duty of care – tort – duty in contract – duty in tort – contributory negligence – – obiter . .
Friends Provident had participated in a development project on terms which required it to pay its share of the development costs as it proceeded. It employed Hillier Parker, a firm of surveyors, to check demands made from time to time for payment of . .
A payment under the Act means a monetary payment: ‘Since such a payment is required where s 1(2) applies it follows that an individual, uninsured claimant who satisfies his liability to the victim by doing remedial work with his own hands cannot . .
The court considered when orders might be made under the Act for a contribution to be made to damages payable. Ferris J said: ‘In my judgment the ex turpi causa defence is not available as an answer to a claim for contribution under the Act of 1978. . .
Illegality was arguably not a defence to a claim under the Act of 1978: ‘The Act of 1978 extends the potential for contribution beyond joint tortfeasors to joint contractors, joint trustees and others who are liable in respect of the same damage. . . .
The claimant made claims against two defendants. It had compromised the claim against one defendant, taking an assignment of that party’s claim against the remaining defendant and continued against that second defendant.
Held: It could not be . .
The claimant, Spire, claimed an indemnity or contribution from the defendantin respect of damages and costs which it, Spire, has paid to Mr Jellett in settlement of a personal injuries claim brought by Mr Jellett against both Spire and Mr Brooke . .
Further judgment . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Whilst a substantial new building was being constructed, it was damaged by fire caused by the negligence of several contractors. The case concerned apportionment of liability.
Held: The appeal failed. The parties could by agreement vary the . .
The claimant sued various of those who had represented him in a claim against the Ministry of Defence. He believed that he had had to accept an inadequate sum in settlement after being at risk of losing the claim for non-prosecution. The defendant . .
The claimants sought damages after the birth of their child with a severe hereditary disease which they said the defendant hospital had failed to diagnose after testing for that disease. The hospital sought a contribution from the company CSL who . .
A driver had crashed through a barrier before a bridge, and descended into the path of a train. Ten people died. He now sought a contribution order against the Secretary of State for the condition of the barrier which was said to be faulty.
A valuer had described expected values for an property proposed as an investment promoted by a co-defendant. The valuation and prediction as to how long it might take to have it let had contributed to the representations leading to the investments . .
Standard expected of negligence claim on counsel The claimant solicitors sought contributory damages from counsel for failing to advise them of the applicable limitation period in an action they were conducting against other solicitors in negligence. Counsel now appealed saying that the judged had failed to follow his correct own direction in law that ‘the … Continue reading Pritchard Joyce and Hinds (A Firm) v Batcup and Another: CA 5 May 2009
Appeal from stay imposed until discovery of a particular document. . .
Damages were claimed against a barrister for advice on a settlement given at the door of the court. After substantial litigation, made considerably more difficult by the negligence of the solicitors, the barrister had not advised the claimant at the . .
The claimants sought damages after contracting meselothemia working for the defendants. The defendants argued that the claimants had possibly contracted the disease at any one or more different places. The Fairchild case set up an exception to the . .
The claimant partnership had sought a contribution from the defendants to the damages awarded against it.
Held: The section made allowance for non-causative factors when calculating a contribution, but the extent to which they should be . .
‘Section 2 of the 1978 Act is not expressed exclusively in terms of causative responsibility for the damage in question, although obviously the court must have regard to this, as the section directs, and it is likely to be the most important factor . .
Hearing of preliminary issues to determine: i) the legal effect of an assignment by the First Defendant (‘MW’) to the Claimant (‘EWHL’) of MW’s sub-contract with the Part 20 Defendant (‘Outotec’); and ii) whether MW can pursue its claims for . .