Citations: [1958] 2 QB 78 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Ronex Properties v. John Laing Construction Ltd CA 1983 The court considered a claim for contribution between tortfeasors. Donaldson LJ said: ‘The starting point of this submission is that a cause of action for contribution, under the Law Reform (Married Women and … Continue reading Harvey v R G O’Dell Ltd: 1958
The defendant solicitor appealed refusal of an order to strike out the claim. The claimant alleged breach of trust. The claimant asserted a fraudulent witholding of information to suggest that any breach of trust had happened. The defendant said that the claimant had sufficient knowledge independent of any concealment to begin the limitation period. Held: … Continue reading Collins v Brebner: CA 19 Jun 1997
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 court considered a claim for contribution between tortfeasors. Donaldson LJ said: ‘The starting point of this submission is that a cause of action for contribution, under the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935, arises at the earliest when the claimant tortfeasor has been held liable, or has admitted liability to the plaintiff, … Continue reading Ronex Properties v. John Laing Construction Ltd: CA 1983
The trial judge had found in favour of the first defendant, a coal company, and held the second defendant, a gas company, wholly to blame for the loss incurred by the plaintiff as the result of an explosion caused by a leakage of gas. The second defendant appealed. Held: The Court upheld the judge’s decision … Continue reading Hanson v Wearmouth Coal Co Ltd: CA 1939
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 judgment. Held: The appeal succeeded. The judgment had been for damages to be assessed. … Continue reading Aer Lingus v Gildacroft Ltd and Another: CA 17 Jan 2006
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 psychiatric disabilities was complex and that different elements of his mental troubles could be attributed to the two separate tortious incidents. … Continue reading Rahman v Arearose Limited and Another, University College London, NHS Trust: CA 15 Jun 2000
The female plaintiff had been injured in a collision caused by the concurrent negligence of her husband and the defendant. She could not succeed in a negligence action against her husband, so the defendant could not recover under the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935 any contribution to the damages awarded against the … Continue reading Drinkwater v Kimber: CA 1952
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 its share of development costs. Friends Provident paid the developer its share … Continue reading Friends’ Provident Life Office v Hillier, Parker May and Rowden: CA 1997
Two ships had collided. A third itself ran aground trying to avoid them, and its ownes sought damages. Held: The unit approach to apportionment of damages was wrong.Lord Morris said of section 1 of the 1911 Act: ‘The section calls for inquiry as to fault, and inquiry as to damage or loss, and inquiry as … Continue reading The Miraflores and The Abadesa: PC 1967
A joint tortfeasor could escape liability in contribution proceedings if it had been unsuccessfully sued by the injured person in an action brought outside the relevant limitation period. Where a court has to decide between two competing cases, if the arguments are fairly evenly balanced that interpretation should be chosen which involves the least alteration … Continue reading Wimpey (George) Co Ltd v British Overseas Airways Corporation: HL 1954
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
