The claimants bought a newly built home from the defendants. Defects were alleged and admitted, but the defendants said the claimants had failed to mitigate their losses or accept offers to have work done. The claimants now sought leave to add shortly before the trial a claim for blight.
Held: The amendment could have been made before and should have been made before. Leave was refused.
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 1364 (TCC)
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Payzu Limited v Saunders CA 1919
The innocent plaintiff buyers had been found to have failed to mitigate their damages because they had not accepted an offer from the defendant sellers (who were in breach of contract) to supply goods on cash terms, the contract having originally . .
Cited – George Fischer (Great Britain) Ltd v Multi Construction Ltd., Dexion Ltd. (third party) 1995
The plaintiff contracted with the defendant for the defendant to install equipment on the premises of one of the claimant’s subsidiaries. The equipment was to be used by the subsidiary. The equipment was defective and damage was suffered by the . .
Cited – Woods v Chaleff 1999
Whether an amendment should be allowed to pleadings shortly before the trial. . .
Cited – Morris v The Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association (Amendment of Claim) 2002
Whether party should be allowed to amend pleadings shortly before a trial. . .
Cited – Bowerbank v Amos (Formerly Staff) CA 31-Jul-2003
The parties had gone into business together. After a breakdown, they had now spent very considerable sums in litigation. At the trial, the judge allowed an amendment of the claim after the close of evidence. He considered that it related to matters . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Construction
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258379