Click the case name for better results:

CMA CGM Sa v Classica Shipping Co Ltd ‘The CMA Djakarta’: CA 12 Feb 2004

The charterers were held liable to the shippers for the cost of repairing the vessel when containers containing bleach exploded. The charterers had established a compensation limitation fund in France. Held: The liability of the charterers was defined by the type of claim brought, not by the capacity in which he acted. The charterers appeal … Continue reading CMA CGM Sa v Classica Shipping Co Ltd ‘The CMA Djakarta’: CA 12 Feb 2004

Todd and Others v Adams and Another: CA 18 Apr 2002

The boat owners had failed to comply with the 1975 safety rules, and seamen died. The boat owners relied upon the restriction on damages in the 1995 Act, and the seamen’s families argued that the failure to apply the safety rules removed that limitation. Held: A breach of the safety rules did not give rise … Continue reading Todd and Others v Adams and Another: CA 18 Apr 2002

Harding v Wealands: CA 17 Dec 2004

The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied. Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to be displaced. Roerig implied a bright line between matters of assessment and heads … Continue reading Harding v Wealands: CA 17 Dec 2004

Pegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd: TCC 25 Feb 2000

Standard Conract – Wide Exclusions, Apply 1977 Act The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages. Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or two of its … Continue reading Pegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd: TCC 25 Feb 2000

Harding v Wealands: HL 5 Jul 2006

The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others: ChD 27 Jul 2005

The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .