Contract. Contract for erection of water treatment works. Whether still in force in relation to a new site when planning permission for original site refused. Effect of express term: ‘Should planning permission be refused and the Works moved to an alternative site ….’.
Warranty. Warranty that ‘solids removed …. generally 60 – 90% of the feed’. Apparent compliance during acceptance tests. Failure to comply during ‘protocol’ tests ordered during the proceedings.
Misrepresentation. ‘Promissory’ representations. Criterion of falsity.
Judges:
His Honour Judge Hicks QC
Citations:
65 Con LR 92, [1999] EWHC Technology 270
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – JFS (UK) Limited Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf CA 18-Sep-1998
A positive averment by defendant short of a claim for relief did not constitute a ‘claim’ under the section, and the judge had jurisdiction to allow a later amendment claiming relief as an original counterclaim. It was not barred either under RSC 20 . .
Cited by:
See Also – JFS (UK) Limited Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf CA 18-Sep-1998
A positive averment by defendant short of a claim for relief did not constitute a ‘claim’ under the section, and the judge had jurisdiction to allow a later amendment claiming relief as an original counterclaim. It was not barred either under RSC 20 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Torts – Other
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.135862
