As part of its attempt to mitigate its loss caused by deceit perpetrated in relation to it by the defendants, the claimant bank presided over the sale of a cargo of bitumen in Vietnam. To do this, it sent one of its officers, to Vietnam on two occasions, each for about two months. The bank claimed his salary during those visits, namely US$30,000. The defendants appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Potter LJ cited Tate and Lyle and said: ‘It does not seem to me that either the passage quoted or the circumstances relating to the claim in Tate and Lyle justify the recovery of the proportion of Mr Griffiths’ salary claimed in this case. No doubt it was true, as the judge stated, that, in visiting Vietnam, Mr Griffiths was engaged in an unusual task. However it is not suggested that his trip abroad, as an employee engaged in the business of [the bank] and in respect of whose responsibilities his salary was in any event payable, led to any significant disruption in [the bank’s] business or any loss of profit or increased expenditure on [the bank’s] part . . In certain situations, involving particular types of trading concern, such a claim may be appropriate. In particular, building contractors who, by reason of delay, suffer increased costs attributable to a particular job which costs are irrecovable elsewhere, may claim for a proportion of their fixed overheads (including head office salaries) as part of their claim for consequential loss. However, that is not this case. There is no suggestion that the business of [the bank], or the system of charging upon which its profits depend, were in any way adversely affected by the diversion of Mr Griffiths to Vietnam.’
Potter LJ, Henry LJ and Wall J
[2001] EWCA Civ 55, [2001] CLC 825
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tate and Lyle Distribution v Greater London Council 1982
The defendants were liable to the claimants for having failed to dredge silt which they had caused to be accumulated when constructing new piers for the Woolwich ferry and which had obstructed the claimants’ use of their barge moorings. The result . .
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 – Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet; The Solholt CA 1983
The seller had failed to deliver the vessel he had sold by the delivery date. The buyer cancelled and requested return of his deposit, also claiming damages because the vessel was worth $500,000 more on the delivery date than she had been when the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Aerospace Publishing Ltd and Another v Thames Water Utilities Ltd CA 11-Jan-2007
A substantial private archive of valuable books had been damaged when the defendant’s water mains burst. The court was asked to assess the value.
Held: The water company’s appeal failed save to a small extent. The articles were of substantial . .
Cited – R+V Versicherung Ag v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions Sa and others ComC 27-Jan-2006
It had held that the defendant insurance intermediaries were liable to the claimants, a German reinsurance company, because of a conspiracy to defraud the claimants on the part of one of the defendants’ employees. The court had to decide issues of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Damages
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.147412
