The Law of Contract

Damages
Second Edition

Adam Kramer

OXFORD AND PORTLAND, OREGON

2017
 Hart Publishing
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Hart Publishing Ltd Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Kemp House 50 Bedford Square
Chawley Park London
Cumnor Hill WC1B 3DP
Oxford OX2 9PH UK
UK

www.hartpub.co.uk
www.bloomsbury.com
Published in North America (US and Canada) by
Hart Publishing
c/o International Specialized Book Services
920 NE 58th Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, OR 97213-3786
USA

www.isbs.com
HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the
Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published 2017
© Adam Kramer 2017
Adam Kramer has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be
identified as Author of this work.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval
system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage
occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be
accepted by the authors, editors or publishers.
All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright ©.
All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright ©.
This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 (http://www.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3) except where otherwise stated.
All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/, 1998–2017.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: HB: 978-1-50991-584-2
ePDF: 978-1-50991-585-9
ePub: 978-1-50991-586-6
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Kramer, Adam (Barrister), author.
Title: The law of contract damages / Adam Kramer.
Description: Second edition. | Oxford ; Portland, Oregon : Hart Publishing, an imprint of
Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017037288 (print) | LCCN 2017039281 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781509915866 (Epub) | ISBN 9781509915842 (hardback : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9781509915859 (ePDF)
Subjects: LCSH: Breach of contract—England. | Damages—England.
Classification: LCC KD1602 (ebook) | LCC K877 .K73 2017 (print) | DDC 346.4202/2—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017037288
Typeset by Compuscript Ltd, Shannon
Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY
To find out more about our authors and books visit www.hartpublishing.co.uk. Here you will find extracts,
author information, details of forthcoming events and the option to sign up for our newsletters.
 Foreword to the First Edition
The law of contract is a system of rules for enforcing promises or, more usually,
requiring the payment of compensation for breaking them, and for shifting the risk
of future or unknown events. In England the judges have developed this branch of
the law over several centuries in a multitude of precedents which have worked out
the ramifications of its various principles in great detail. As a result, English contract
law has a clarity and predictability which makes it the system of choice for countless
commercial transactions, many of which have nothing to do with England. It is a
national asset, the jewel in the crown of the common law.
It is, however, neither perfect nor static. It is in the nature of judge-made law that
it avoids what Jean-Étienne-Marie Portalis, the principal draftsman of the Code
Napoleon, described as the ‘the dangerous ambition of wanting to regulate every-
thing and foresee everything.’ It adapts to changes in the practices of trade and com-
merce. And it is subject to constant reconsideration and refinement by generations
of judges with a view to removing obscurities and inconsistencies. This process is
essential because it is a reproach to any system of commercial law if lawyers have
to tell their clients that although the facts are clear, it is anyone’s guess how a judge
will apply the law to them.
In making these adaptations and improvements to the law of contract, English
judges have a long tradition, going back to Lord Mansfield, of drawing upon the
work of systematic writers on the law. In the 18th and 19th centuries these tended to
be continental writers, as the homegrown practitioner’s text book was anything but
systematic, rather resembling a miscellaneous collection of precedents such as would
today be thrown up by a computer search. But since the middle of the last century
there has been a growing recognition in appellate courts of the value of writings by
academics or members of the profession who have had the opportunity to consider
the principles of the law as a whole rather than merely the fragment under consid-
eration in a particular case.
The ability to stand back and analyse principles is a necessary corrective to two
tendencies to which the common law system of judge-made law tends to be prone.
The first is what in modern management-speak would be called a silo mentality,
that is, a failure to see the connections between one branch (or twig) of the law and
another. A system of precedent encourages lawyers to look for resemblances between
their case and some earlier reported decision, but sometimes those resemblances,
like Fluellen’s comparison of Henry V with Alexander the Great (‘There is a river
in Macedon; and there is also moreover a river at Monmouth and there is salmons
in both’) are not the most relevant for the purpose in hand. Analysis is necessary to
show that cases which were previously thought in some relevant respect to be differ-
ent, actually exemplify applications of the same principle. Lord Atkin’s analysis of
the law of negligence in Donoghue v Stevenson is a celebrated example.
vi Foreword to the First Edition

A second source of confusion in the law is the opposite, namely, a tendency to

want to explain all cases as manifestations of a single principle when in fact there
is more than one in play. Adam Smith, in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, noted ‘a
propensity, which is natural to all men, but which philosophers in particular are apt
to cultivate with a peculiar fondness, as the great means of displaying their ingenu-
ity, the propensity to account for all appearances from as few principles as possible.’
The same is true of lawyers; not perhaps to display ingenuity but from a misguided
belief that life should be simpler than it is. For example, it caused general astonish-
ment and admiration when Lord Diplock pointed out in Hong Kong Fir Shipping
Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kishen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 that the concepts of condi-
tions and warranties were inadequate for determining in every case whether a breach
of contract entitled the other party to rescind. Many terms—probably most—are
‘innominate’. A breach of such a term may or may not give rise to a right of rescis-
sion, depending upon how serious it is. How did judges manage before Lord Diplock
pointed this out? They did what judges usually do when the law requires them to
apply a rule based upon an inadequate analysis of the issues: they cheated. If the
breach was sufficiently serious, they declared the term to have been a condition
and if not, they said it had been a warranty. Of course that made it difficult to
explain why much the same term should be a condition in one case and a warranty
in another. The actual grounds for such decisions, as opposed to the formal grounds,
were opaque. But until the Hong Kong Fir case, the full explanation had to be sup-
pressed. As Lord Diplock acidly remarked in Ilkiw v Samuels [1963] 1 WLR 991,
1004, ‘the law is nearly always most obscure in those fields in which judges say that
the principle is plain, but the difficulty lies in its application to particular facts.’
The law of damages, a substantial and important part of the law contract, con-
tains examples of both deficiencies of analysis: the fragmentation of single prin-
ciples and the reductionism which tries to make do with one principle when more
are required. If I may mention an example in which I was personally involved, the
majority decision of the House of Lords in the Achilleas [2009] 1 AC 61 was an
attempt to release judges from the difficulties of having to decide whether losses
resulting from a breach of contract were too remote by means of the single criterion
of whether they were foreseeable at the time of the contract. These difficulties had
been foreseen by Lord Penzance in Gee v Lancashire and Yorkshire Rlwy Co (1860)
6 H & N 211, 221, only six years after Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341. The
efforts of judges to decide every case on the sole basis of foreseeability has resulted in
either fine linguistic distinctions about degrees of foreseeability (as in The Heron II
[1969] 1 AC 350) or the kind of opaque reasoning which makes the distinction
between foreseeable and unforeseeable damage seem entirely arbitrary.
I mention this case because it was an article by Adam Kramer, the author of this
book, which contributed to the adoption of a new approach by the House of Lords
in the Achilleas. The kind of analysis contained in that article is now displayed on
the wider canvas of the whole law of contractual damages. It is exactly the kind
of systematic discussion of a legal topic by which writers can assist judges in the
development of the common law. It provides a detailed examination of all the rules
on the subject, their relationship to each other and occasionally the difficulties aris-
ing out of the way they have been formulated in some of the authorities. This is a
 Foreword to the First Edition vii

subject that, in the standard works on the law of contract as a whole, is necessarily
discussed at a more superficial level. But I expect this book to become a prime source
for anyone who has a practical problem or needs to formulate an argument concern-
ing contractual damages.

Leonard Hoffmann, Autumn 2013

 Foreword to the Second Edition
The general principle on which damages for breach of contract are awarded in
English law is simple: the claimant is entitled to be paid a sum of money equivalent
to their loss caused by the defendant’s breach. Where things can get difficult is in
identifying and applying the relevant test of causation. It might seem that English
law has too many doctrines for this purpose. The principles of remoteness and miti-
gation, as well as other notions such as scope of duty, assumption of responsibility,
collateral benefits and intervening acts, may all appear to jostle alongside the princi-
ple of causation itself in the same legal space.
A great achievement of this book is its clarification of these concepts and their
relationship with each other. I will mention two insights that I have found especially
helpful. The first concerns mitigation. Although mitigation is often seen as a distinct
doctrine comprising a number of separate rules, Adam Kramer convincingly argues
that it is better understood as a single principle which is merely one aspect of legal
causation. Under this principle, if the claimant does not act reasonably in response
to the defendant’s breach of contract, the claimant’s action or inaction is treated in
law as breaking the chain of causation and damages are assessed as if the claimant
had acted reasonably. What conduct is regarded as reasonable in this context is
partly governed by certain settled norms and expectations. Foremost of these is that,
where there is a market in which the claimant can (by buying or selling) replace the
defendant’s performance, the claimant is expected to resort to it.
The second insight was encapsulated in the title of an article that Adam Kramer
wrote jointly with Andrew Summers (then named Andrew Dyson) in the Law
Quarterly Review: ‘There is No “Breach Date Rule”’.1 On the conventional view, it
is a general rule of English law that damages for breach of contract are assessed ‘as
at’ the date of breach. This rule is then said to be qualified by a discretion to depart
from it where to do so is required by the basic compensatory principle. There are
several disadvantages with this formulation of the law. One is that it leaves unex-
plained why English law should adopt such an approach and has sometimes been
taken to suggest that our courts have chosen (for obscure reasons) to put on blinkers
which prevent them from looking at what has happened after the breach occurred.
Another disadvantage is that this statement of the law offers no meaningful crite-
rion for determining when the court should depart from the general rule. With all
respect to a great judge, the difficulty can be illustrated by the dissenting judgment
of Lord Bingham in Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha.2 There
Lord Bingham first of all says that the compensatory principle ‘does not … resolve
the question whether the injured party’s loss is to be assessed as of the date when

1 See A Dyson and A Kramer, ‘There is No “Breach Date Rule”: Mitigation, Difference in Value and

Date of Assessment’ (2014) 130 LQR 259.

2 Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The ‘Golden Victory’) [2007] 2 AC 353.
x Foreword to the Second Edition

he suffers the loss … or at a later date’.3 He then recites the ‘general rule’ that dam-
ages are assessed as at the date of breach4 but a little later accepts that ‘the court
has shown itself willing to depart from this rule where it judges it necessary or just
to do so in order to give effect to the compensatory principle’.5 All this is orthodox.
Yet, it is not apparent how a principle which does not resolve the question of when
damages are to be assessed may after all be used to decide the date at which to do so.
Building on his article with Andrew Summers, Adam Kramer solves these prob-
lems in this book by showing that the ‘breach date’ rule is not really a rule of law at
all, but only a rule of thumb which describes the usual result in practice of applying
the mitigation principle, at least where there is an available market. As already men-
tioned, where there is a market, damages are assessed as if the claimant entered the
market at once and obtained a replacement performance whether or not it in fact did
so. Hence the prima facie measure of damages where, for example, a seller wrong-
fully fails to deliver goods is the difference between the contract price and the market
price at the date when the goods should have been delivered: see s.51 of the Sale of
Goods Act 1979. Thus, applying the mitigation principle can result in the claim-
ant’s loss crystallising at a date which often coincides (or roughly coincides) with
the date of breach. But where the mitigation principle does not yield this result—as,
for example, where the claimant is not aware of the defendant’s breach until later or
where there is no readily available market—the relevant loss will occur, and so the
damages will be measured, at a different date.
I have taken some time to draw attention to these two related insights because
they are emblematic of what this book offers and because they seem to me to be
instances of legal scholarship at its best. What may appear at first sight to be rules
for which the justification is opaque are shown to be expressions of a coherent and
rational set of principles. Bringing those principles to light not only provides a better
explanation of the law but is calculated to lead to better decisions in difficult cases.
One objective measure of this book’s quality is the extent to which developments
in the law since it was first published, and which are referenced in this second edi-
tion, confirm its analysis (and have in some cases been influenced by it). The most
notable example is the decision of the Supreme Court in Bunge SA v Nidera NV,6
which provides validation at the highest level for the insights regarding mitigation,
markets and the date of assessment that I have highlighted. Another very recent
instance is the decision of the Supreme Court in Globalia Business Travel SAU of
Spain v Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama.7 This decision, though disappointingly short
on discussion of general principles, illustrates how a gain made by the claimant just
as much as a loss will not be treated as a consequence of the defendant’s breach to
the extent that it would not have arisen if the claimant had responded in the way
reasonably to be expected (in this case by re-chartering rather than selling a ship).

3
ibid, para 9.
4
ibid, para 11.
5 ibid, para 13.
6 Bunge SA v Nidera NV [2015] 3 All ER 1082.
7 Business Travel SAU of Spain v Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama (‘The New Flamenco’) [2017]

1 WLR 2581.
 Foreword to the Second Edition xi

When, as a young barrister, I was invited to edit a legal text book and consulted
my head of chambers for advice, he counselled me against it on the basis that it
would end up occupying too many holidays and weekends. The pace of change in
the law has continued to accelerate since then, with a corresponding increase in the
burden on anyone who edits, let alone who creates from scratch, a major treatise
such as this. It is testament to his industry as well as his virtuosity that, on top of
being a busy practitioner, Adam Kramer has made the time to write this valuable
book and now to produce this updated edition. The legal community has reason to
be grateful to him.

George Leggatt, September 2017

 Preface
Most contract disputes, in common with legal disputes generally, turn primarily on
facts and not law. That said, there are two areas of English and Welsh contract law
that are most often important to disputes. The first is the law governing the inter-
pretation of contracts. The second is the law governing the calculation of contract
damages. The interpretation of contracts is now well served by a handful of detailed
practitioner textbooks. Contract damages, however, although incisively covered in
more general works such as McGregor on Damages and Chitty on Contracts, has no
detailed treatment devoted to it.
And there is a lot to say. Although the principles of contract damages were first
fixed in the nineteenth century, and we still routinely cite Robinson v Harman and
Hadley v Baxendale from 1848 and 1854 respectively, the last 20 years or so, fol-
lowing Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth in 1995 and SAAMCo in 1996 (the recent
favourites when I first studied law), have seen a process of rapid development of case
law and rationalisation of principle in and around contract damages. Conspicuous
examples taken only from the House of Lords and Surpreme Court include Attorney
General v Blake on restitutionary damages (2001), Alfred McAlpine v Panatown
on third party loss (2001), Farley v Skinner on non-pecuniary loss (2001), Lagden
v O’Connor on impecuniosity (2003), Sempra Metals on loss of use of money
(2007), The Golden Victory on mitigation and the date of assessment (2007), The
Achilleas on remoteness (2008), Bunge v Nidera on The Golden Victory principle
(2015), BPE v Hughes-Holland on the SAAMCo principle (2017), and Swynson
v Lowick Rose and The New Flamenco on res inter alios acta and collateral benefits
(both 2017). Busy times.
As well as the big questions, there are numerous fairly confined issues that arise in
practice but as to which it has been (until now) difficult to locate clear commentary
and case authority. (When can a claimant claim for lost management time? When
must a claimant give credit for the value of a debt or right it has against a third
party? Are hedging costs too remote? How is the date of assessment fixed in a share
sale case?) The aim of this book is to provide the practitioner and the student with
at once both a clearly structured explanation of the bigger principles, and a detailed
coverage of the more confined issues and the case law.
I have limited the book to contract damages, excluding tort claims, for a few
reasons. First, the law of tort damages is less coherent than contract damages,
because different torts have different rules. Secondly, any work covering tort
damages necessarily must include a detailed coverage of personal injury damages
and ship collisions, which carries the danger of making such a book a little unwieldy
for the commercial practitioners and others who do not deal with these areas, and
for contract lawyers and students. Thirdly, I don’t know as much about tort law,
at least outside the commercial sphere. That said, a large portion of the questions
raised by a contract law damages inquiry are identical or nearly identical to those
in tort, particularly negligence. Examples that spring to mind include the scope of
xiv Preface

duty in professional negligence, loss upon damage to property, mitigation and the
date of assessment, and breaks in the chain of causation. Tort cases, accordingly, are
present in numbers in some sections of this book.
In introducing this book, I must thank Richard Hart and his team at Hart
Publishing for their support in preparation and publication of the first edition. The
free rein he provided kept this book fun to write, and that has been continued by
the Hart/Bloomsbury team with this the second edition. I am also grateful to McGill
University in Montreal, where I wrote a large portion of the first edition while a vis-
iting scholar during the summer of 2012, and to my chambers 3 Verulam Buildings
and my clerks, who have helped me to fit my writing in amongst the commitments
of my barrister’s practice.
In terms of editorial work, as well as the editing team at Hart, my thanks go
especially to Andrew Summers for our collaborations and discussions which have
developed my own thinking immeasurably, and also to Ed Fiddick, Ian Higgins, Simon
McLoughlin, Natalie Moore, Niki Newbegin, Scott Ralson, Sarah Rees-Leonard,
Kate Shipton, Steve Smith, and Stephen Whinder, all of whom read various sections
of the first edition.
I’d also like to thank Lord Hoffmann. I admire and agree with almost every- thing
he said while making his considerable mark on contract law. Also, he was the first,
and so far the only, judge to cite my work in our highest court. Last of all, he kindly
agreed to write the foreword to the first edition. Few could follow him as capably as
Lord Justice Leggatt, probably the most thoughtful damages lawyer on the bench,
and the generous author of the foreword to this the second edition.
The first edition was probably my first child, quickly followed by three human
daughters. Its development has been outpaced by theirs immeasurably over the last
few years, and it is to them and my wife Kathryn that I dedicate this book, and eve-
rything else I do.

London, August 2017*

* The edition is up to date to August 2017, save that it was not possible to give The New Flamenco
the space it deserves.
 Contents
Foreword to the First Edition ................................................................................. v
Foreword to the Second Edition ............................................................................ ix
Preface ................................................................................................................ xiii
Subject-matter Table of Contents ........................................................................ xxi
Table of Cases .................................................................................................... xxv
Table of Legislation........................................................................................... lxxv

PART I: INTRODUCTION

1. A Brief Introduction to the Contract Damages Award ..................................... 3

1. Summary ................................................................................................... 3
2. The Damages Remedy ............................................................................... 4
3. The Principles of Compensation .............................................................. 12
4. The Theory of Contract Damages ........................................................... 17
5. The Currency of the Award ..................................................................... 20

PART II: TYPES OF COMPLAINT

2. Pure Services: Non-Supply/Defective Supply/Delayed Supply ......................... 25

1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 25
2. Services to Commercial Claimants (Including Lost Management
Time Claims) ........................................................................................... 27
3. Services to Public Bodies ......................................................................... 42
4. Services to Consumers ............................................................................. 43
3. Misadvice (Especially Professional Negligence) and Contractual
Misstatement ................................................................................................. 45
1. Introduction to the Breach and Non-Breach Positions in Advice
and Similar Cases .................................................................................... 45
2. Extrication Cases .................................................................................... 50
3. Adoption/Non-Extrication Cases ............................................................ 61
4. The Non-Breach Position: The Alternative Transaction the Claimant
Would Have Entered into ........................................................................ 67
4. Property Non-Delivery, Destruction and Defects (Damage, Sale,
Construction, Misrepair) ............................................................................... 78
1. Introduction to the Different Measures of Loss ....................................... 78
2. Market Replacement, the First Cure........................................................ 82
3. Repair, the Second Cure ........................................................................ 122
4. Further Issues in Repair and Replacement Cases ................................... 140
5. The Measure when There is No Market Replacement
and No Repair ...................................................................................... 143
xvi Contents

5. Refusal/Failure to Accept Goods, Services or Other Performance .............. 160

1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 160
2. Cure by Finding a Replacement Customer on the Market ................... 161
3. Lost Volume Sales: Where Supply Outstrips Demand.......................... 170
4. No Replacement and Alternative Mitigation ....................................... 172
5. Non-Financial Loss ............................................................................. 175
6. Temporary Loss of Use of the Claimant’s Property .................................... 177
1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 177
2. The Cost of Hiring a Temporary Replacement .................................... 178
3. Lost Profits from Sale to the Market ................................................... 180
4. Lost Profits from Employment of the Property .................................... 184
5. Loss of Use of Non-Profit-Earning Goods ........................................... 194
7. Loss of Use of Money, Including Obligations to Pay .................................. 201
1. The Cost of Borrowing Replacement Money ...................................... 202
2. Lost Profits from Use of the Money .................................................... 206
3. Devaluation and Exchange Rate Losses .............................................. 209
4. Causing Insolvency ............................................................................. 209
5. Other Losses ....................................................................................... 210
6. Specific Points Relating to Breach of Obligations to Pay Money ......... 211
7. Awards of Interest Outside the Claim for Damages ............................. 212
8. Inflation .............................................................................................. 216
8. Claims by a Tenant, Charterer or Hirer ..................................................... 218
1. Non-Delivery ...................................................................................... 218
2. Late Delivery ....................................................................................... 219
3. Hire of Defective Property and Damage to Hired Property ................. 219
9. Warranties and Indemnities ....................................................................... 225
1. Introduction to Warranties .................................................................. 225
2. Warranties of Authority ...................................................................... 225
3. Warranties of Quality.......................................................................... 226
4. Warranties of Reasonable Care ........................................................... 233
5. Indemnities ......................................................................................... 237
10. Negative Covenants ................................................................................... 241
1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 241
2. Property-Related Restrictive Covenants .............................................. 241
3. Exclusive Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses and Non-Litigation
Agreements ......................................................................................... 243
4. Non-Compete, Non-Solicitation, Exclusivity, Business Secret
and Confidentiality Clauses ................................................................. 243

PART III: FACTUAL CAUSATION AND ACTUAL LOSS

11. Introduction to Factual Causation ............................................................. 249

1. Factual ‘But For’ Causation ................................................................ 249
2. Harm that Would Have Happened Anyway ........................................ 250
 Contents xvii

12. The Breach Position: Proving What Actually Happened

and Will Happen ....................................................................................... 253
1. What Happened Prior to Trial? ........................................................... 253
2. What Will Happen Post-Trial? (The Chance of a Loss Principle)......... 254
13. The Non-Breach Position: Proving What Would Have Happened but
for the Breach ............................................................................................ 256
1. Summary ............................................................................................. 256
2. What Would the Claimant Have Done? .............................................. 258
3. What Would the Defendant Have Done? ............................................ 265
4. What Natural Events Would Have Occurred? ..................................... 279
5. What Would Third Parties Have Done? (The Principle of Loss
of a Chance) ........................................................................................ 281
6. The Future: What Would Have Happened after Trial.......................... 293
7. Tax (That Would Have Been but Will Not Be Paid) ............................ 294

PART IV: LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF REMOTENESS, MITIGATION

AND LEGAL CAUSATION

14. Remoteness and Scope of Duty .................................................................. 299

1. Start with Foreseeability ...................................................................... 299
2. The Assumption of Responsibility Basis .............................................. 300
3. The Reasonable Contemplation Test of Remoteness ........................... 305
4. The Cap Rule from Cory v Thames Ironworks ................................... 320
5. The Scope of Duty Principle ................................................................ 324
6. Factors Relevant to Scope of Duty and Assumption
of Responsibility ................................................................................. 345
7. The Burden of Proof ........................................................................... 351
8. The Interaction of Scope of Duty with Contributory Negligence
and Contribution ................................................................................ 351
15. Legal Causation and Mitigation and the Breach Position........................... 353
1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 353
2. Legal Causation .................................................................................. 356
3. The Principle of Mitigation ................................................................. 363
4. Betterment .......................................................................................... 380
5. Burdens of Proof ................................................................................. 383
6. Contributory Negligence ..................................................................... 384
7. Applying Legal Causation to What Would Have Happened
but for the Breach ............................................................................... 388
16. Intervening and Mitigatory Acts and Events by Category .......................... 391
1. Introduction to this Chapter ............................................................... 391
2. Claimant Failure to Avoid the Danger ................................................. 392
3. Failing to Terminate the Contract with the Defendant ........................ 396
4. The Claimant Sourcing or Not Sourcing a Replacement
or Repair............................................................................................. 403
5. Speculation by the Claimant ............................................................... 406
xviii Contents

6. Money Made by the Claimant Post-Breach ....................................... 410

7. Impecuniosity and Other Special Characteristics of the Claimant ..... 417
8. Unreasonable Claimant Conduct ...................................................... 422
9. Post-Breach Dealings with the Defendant.......................................... 424
10. Receipt by the Claimant of Payments or Help from Third Parties
(Including Insurance and State Assistance and Litigation
with Third Parties) or Non-Payment by Third Parties ....................... 430
11. Payments by the Claimant to Third Parties ....................................... 448
12. Passing on Risk or Selling the Property to Third Parties .................... 449
13. Events External to the Claimant........................................................ 453
17. The Date of Assessment ............................................................................. 469
1. The Principles ................................................................................... 469
2. The Different Dates of Purchase of a Replacement on the Market .... 476
3. The Different Dates of Sale to the Market......................................... 482
4. Where There is No Opportunity to Resort to the Market ................. 492

PART V: PARTICULAR TYPES OF LOSS REQUIRING SEPARATE

EXAMINATION

18. Proving Business Loss: Revenue, Profit and Costs ...................................... 495
1. Revenue, Profit and Capital Loss ...................................................... 495
2. Pleading, Proof, Evidence and the Fair Wind Principle ...................... 499
3. The Presumption of Breaking Even and the Myth of the Reliance
Measure of Loss ................................................................................ 512
4. Examples of Lost Profit Awards ........................................................ 519
19. Non-Pecuniary Loss................................................................................... 525
1. The Evolution of the Legal Test ........................................................ 525
2. Specific Issues in Non-Pecuniary Loss Awards................................... 540
3. (Physical) Inconvenience and Disturbance ......................................... 548
4. Personal Injury .................................................................................. 550
20. Indemnity for Liability to Third Parties and Compensation
for Litigation Costs.................................................................................... 552
1. Indemnity for Third Party Liability ................................................... 552
2. Costs in Relation to the Breach of Contract Dispute Itself ................ 558
3. Costs in Previous Proceedings Against the Defendant ....................... 558
4. Costs in Third Party Proceedings ...................................................... 559

PART VI: OTHER MATTERS

21. Third Parties and Loss ............................................................................... 563

1. Recovery by the Claimant of the Third Party’s Loss for the
Benefit of the Third Party (‘Transferred Loss’ and the
Albazero Principle) ........................................................................... 563
2. Recovery by a Claimant of Its Own Loss .......................................... 572
3. Third Party Claims Under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties)
Act 1999 ........................................................................................... 580
 Contents xix

22. Wrotham Park Hypothetical Bargain Damages ......................................... 582

1. The Wrotham Park Decision ............................................................... 582
2. The Principles ..................................................................................... 583
3. Scope of the Principles ........................................................................ 587
4. Basis of the Principles .......................................................................... 590
23. Non-Compensatory Damages .................................................................... 593
1. Nominal Damages .............................................................................. 593
2. Account of Profits/Restitutionary Damages ......................................... 593
3. Punitive/Exemplary Damages .............................................................. 601
24. Concurrent Claims .................................................................................... 604
1. Against the Same Defendant ............................................................... 604
2. Against Different Defendants .............................................................. 605

Index.................................................................................................................. 609
 Subject-matter Table of Contents
This alternative table of contents is arranged by traditional contract subject-matter
categorisation, to assist those practising or studying in one area to find sections
that may be of particular relevance to them (although it remains the thesis of this
book that the applicable damages principles are almost always universal and not
subject-specific).
— Carriage
— Late delivery of persons or property: para 2-04; ch 6, especially para 6-14,
6-23 and 6-49 to 52
— Damage or destruction of property: ch 4, ch 6
— Remoteness issues in claims against carriers: paras 14-21 to 23, 14-38 to
46 and 14-174
— Claims by a purchaser of goods against the carrier: ch 21, especially
paras 21-06ff
— Charterparties
— Breach by charterer
— late redelivery of vessel: paras 6-17 and 6-27 to 31 (generally), 14-167
to 168 (remoteness)
— failure to redeliver vessel: para 4-150
— non-acceptance or repudiation by the charterer: paras 5-26 to 33,
paras 5-51 to 53; paras 13-40 (where the charterer had alternative
modes of performance), 13-41 to 43 (would the charterer have ter-
minated?); para 16-115 (should the owner re-contract with the
charterer?)
— demurrage claims: para 9-51
— Breach by shipowner
— non-delivery of vessel: paras 8-02 to 03
— late delivery of vessel: paras 8-04 to 05
— defective vessel: paras 8-06 to 09
— interruption of charter by unseaworthiness etc: para 6-32
— Damage to chartered vessel: paras 6-24 to 26 and 6-33 to 36
— Commercial Agency
— Wrongful termination: para 5-54
— Construction
— Generally: chs 4 and 6, especially paras 4-151 to 206 (cost of repair), 4-262
to 266 (abatement), 6.15 and 6-39 to 48 (delayed completion)
— The reasonableness test for cost of cure: paras 4-157 to 206
— Mitigation by allowing the builder to cure the defect: paras 16-112 to 114
— Damages for loss suffered by third parties: ch 21
xxii Subject-matter Table of Contents

— Non-pecuniary loss and damages for physical inconvenience: ch 19, espe-

cially paras 19-19 to 26 and paras 19-73 to 75 (physical inconvenience)
— Employment
— Dismissal
— financial loss: paras 5-34 to 35, 13-45 to 52
— non-pecuniary loss: paras 5-57 to 61
— Mitigation by taking employment with the same employer: paras 16-110
to 111
— Damages for failure by employee to turn up for work: ch 2
— Non-compete and non-solicitation clauses: paras 10-07 to 10
— Insurance
— Damages for non-payment by an insurer: paras 7-38, 7-40 to 41;
paras 9-49 to 50; paras 19-13 to 14
— Insurance broker negligence:
— and loss of chance: para 13-115
— and scope of duty: paras 14-145 and 164
— and non-responding insurance: para 3-103
— and insured failure to check the policy: para 16-06
— As collateral to disputes with others than the insurer: paras 16-128 to 137
— Landlord and Tenant
— Tenant claims:
— for non-delivery, late delivery, and defective property: ch 8
— for failure to repair: paras 19-29 to 34
— Landlord claims:
— for redelivery in poor condition: paras 4-184 to 189
— Loans
— Lender claims:
— against borrowers: ch 7; para 22-14
— against valuers and professionals: ch 3 (generally); paras 7.14 to 15;
paras 14-84 to 157 (scope of duty); para 16-65 to 66 (when is loss suf-
fered); section 16.10G(i)(a) (credit for receipts); sections 16.10G(ii)–(iii)
and 16.10H (rights under the security and whether expected to pursue
the borrower)
— Borrower claims:
— against lenders for failure to lend or delayed lending: ch 7
— against third parties for inducing the loan: paras 16-62 to 64
— Professional Negligence
— Generally: ch 3
— What level of performance if no breach?: paras 13-64 and 13-68 to 71
— Claimant’s reliance: paras 13-11 to 21
— Loss of a chance: paras 13-79 to 117
— Scope of duty: paras 14-84 to 157
— Date of assessment: paras 17-38ff
— Non-pecuniary loss: paras 19-11 and 19-27 to 28
 Subject-matter Table of Contents xxiii

— Indemnity for liability to third parties and recovery of litigation costs:

ch 20
— Sale of Goods and Land
— Buyer claims: chs 4 and 6 (generally); ch 9 (warranty claims); ch 14 (remote-
ness generally) but especially paras 14-164, 14-174, 14-176; paras 16-107
to 109 (should the buyer re-contract with the seller?); paras 16-212ff
(destruction and causation)
— Seller claims: ch 5
— Date of assessment and resort to the market issues: paras 16-37 to 61;
ch 17
— Damages for loss suffered by third parties: ch 21
— Services
— Recipient claims: ch 2
— Provider claims: ch 5 (non-acceptance), ch 7 (non-payment or late payment)
— Share Sales
— Non-delivery: ch 4 (generally), ch 16 (date of assessment)
— Warranty claims: ch 9 (generally), paras 14-165 to 166 (remoteness)
— Shareholder claims for loss to a parent company: paras 21-35 to 40
 Table of Cases
A v B (No 2) [2007] EWHC 54 (Comm) ....................................................................... 10-06
A Pindell Ltd v AirAsia Berhad [2010] EWHC 2516 (Comm)................... 6-17, 6-31, 14-171
AB Corp v CD Co (The Sine Nomine) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 805 .................................. 23-16
AB Kemp Ltd v Tolland (t/a James Tolland & Co) [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 681 ................. 7-46
Abbar v Saudi Economic & Development Co (SEDCO) Real Estate Ltd
[2013] EWHC 1414 (Ch) ......................................................16-211, 18-16, 18-25, 22-10,
22-15, 22-18, 22-23, 23-30
Abbey Forwarding Ltd v Hone (No 3) [2012] EWHC 3525 (Ch);
[2013] Ch 455; [2014] EWCA Civ 711; [2015] Ch 309 (CA)............... 7-02, 14-28, 18-38,
19-12, 19-55
ABD (Metals and Waste) Ltd v Anglo Chemical and Ore Co Ltd
[1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 456 (CA).................................................................................... 5-08
Abrahams v Herbert Reiach Ltd [1922] 1 KB 477 (CA) .......................... 13-40, 13-54, 13-61
Abrahams v Performing Rights Society Ltd [1995] ICR 1028 (CA)............................... 16-31
AC Daniels & Co Ltd v Jungwoo Logic, 14 April 2000 ................................................ 18-68
Acanthus, The [1902] P 17.......................................................................................... 16-215
ACC Bank plc v Johnston [2011] IEHC 376 (Irish HC) ................7-14, 7-28, 14-91, 14-141,
16-247, 21-39, 22-14
Acre 1127 Ltd v De Montford Fine Art Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 87 ................................. 5-41
Acsim (Southern) v Danish Contracting and Development (1989)
47 BLR 55 (CA) ........................................................................................................ 4-264
Activa DPS Europe Sarl v Pressure Seal Solutions [2012] EWCA Civ 943 ........ 15-09, 16-108
Acton v Graham Pearce & Co (a firm) [1997] 3 All ER 909 (CA)............................... 13-117
Adam v Atlas International Property Services Ltd [2016] EWHC 3120 (QB) ................ 19-28
Addax Ltd v Arcadia Ltd [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 493 .................................. 5-49, 6-44, 16-158
Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488 (HL) ........................5-59, 18-34, 19-02, 23-30
Admiral Management Services Ltd v Para-Protect Europe Ltd [2002]
EWHC 233 (Ch); [2002] 1 WLR 2722 ........................................................................ 2-29
Admiralty Commissioners v Owners of the SS Chekiang (The Chekiang)
[1926] AC 637 (HL) ......................................................................4-260, 6-63, 6-65, 6-73,
16-205, 16-218
Admiralty Commissioners v Owners of The SS Susquehanna
(The Susquehanna) [1926] AC 655 (HL) ..................................................................... 6-65
ADO Ltd v BDO Binder Hamlyn, 6 December 1995.............................................. 9-18, 9-39
Aercap Partners 1 Ltd v Avia Asset Management AB [2010]
EWHC 2431 (Comm).............................................................................. 5-09, 5-24, 13-93
Aerial Advertising Co v Batchelors Peas Ltd (Manchester) [1938] 2 All ER 788 ........... 18-46
Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 3........ 2-23, 2-27,
2-29, 4-161
AG Bracey Ltd v Iles [1973] IRLR 210 ........................................................................... 5-34
Ageas (UK) Ltd v Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd [2014] EWHC 2178 (QB)................... 9-15, 9-16, 9-29,
14-165, 16-60
Agius v Great Western Colliery Co [1899] 1 QB 413 (CA) ........................................... 20-23
Agouman v Leigh Day [2016] EWHC 1324 (QB) ............................................ 13-40, 16-239
xxvi Table of Cases

Ahsan v Labour Party, 29 July 2011 (EAT) ................................................................... 13-27

AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co (a firm) [2012] EWHC 35 (Ch) ................... 22-14
Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Ltd v Lombard North Central plc [2012]
EWHC 3162 (QB) ............................................................................... 4-130, 4-133, 15-64
Airloom Holdings Pty Ltd v Thales Australia Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1513 ..................... 13-126
AKAS Jamal v Moolla Dawood Sons & Co [1916]
1 AC 175 (PC) ................................................................................5-11, 5-17, 9-11, 17-24
Al Rawas v Pegasus Energy Ltd [2008] EWHC 617 (QB);
[2009] 1 All ER 346 ........................................................................................... 2-23, 2-26
Alan Ramsay Sales & Marketing Ltd v Typhoo Tea Ltd [2016]
EWHC 486 (Comm); [2016] 4 WLR 59 ...................................................................... 5-54
Alaskan Trader, The see Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International Ltd
Albacruz v Albazero (The Albazero) [1977] AC 774 (HL) .......... 21-06, 21-07, 21-15–21-17,
21-22, 21-25
Albion Water Ltd v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig [2013] CAT 6 .......................................... 13-70
Albury Asset Rentals Ltd v Ash Manor Cheese Co Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 548 ......... 16-109,
16-116
Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Broderick [2002] 1 AC 371 (PC) ..................... 16-87, 16-92
Aldgate Construction Co Ltd v Unibar Plumbing & Heating Ltd
[2010] EWHC 1063 (TCC); (2010) 130 Con LR 190 ......................... 4.166, 14-39, 16-94
Alecos M, The see Sealace Shipping Co Ltd v Oceanvoice Ltd
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 310 .................... 14-137, 16-224
Alexander v Rolls Royce Motor Cars Ltd [1996] RTR 95 (CA) ................ 4-210, 6-76, 19-13
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd (1998) 58 Con LR 46 (CA);
[2001] 1 AC 518 (HL) .................. 1-36, 4-203, 4-265, 4-266, 19-24, 19-43, 21-03, 21-07,
21-08, 21-13, 21-15–21-17, 21-20–21-22, 21-25,
21-26, 21-31, 21-37, 21-42–21-45, 21-48–21-51,
21-54, 21-55, 21-57–21-59, 21-61, 21-65
Algeiba v Australind (1921) 8 Ll L Rep 210.............................................. 4-54, 4-174, 4-180
Ali Reza-Delta Transport Co Ltd v United Arab Shipping Co [2003]
EWCA Civ 684; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 450 (CA) ............................................ 4-139, 15-76
Alliance & Leicester Building Society v Edgestop Ltd, 13 June 1994.................. 17-54, 17-55
Alliance & Leicester Building Society v Paul Robinson & Co, 4 May 2000 (CA).......... 13-94
Allied Canners & Packers Inc v Victor Packing Co (1985) 162 Cal App 3d 905
(California CA)............................................................................................... 4-117, 4-126
Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons (a firm) [1995]
1 WLR 1602 (CA) ......................................................... 3-49, 13-04, 13-08, 13-13, 13-80,
13-81, 13-93, 13-99
Alton House Garages v Marleywood Marine, 5 July 1983 .............................................. 5-42
Altus Group (UK) Ltd v Baker Tilly Tax and Advisory Services LLP
[2015] EWHC 12 (Ch) ............................................................................................ 13-118
Alucraft Pty Ltd v Grocon Ltd (No 2) [1996] 2 VR 386 (SC of Victoria) ...................... 20-10
AMEC Developments Ltd v Jury’s Hotel Management (UK) Ltd (2000)
82 P & CR 286 ................................................................................... 22-03, 22-04, 22-06
Amgen Inc v Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds,
27 February 2013 (SC) .............................................................................................. 13-20
Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd v Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd [2012]
EWHC 1820 (Ch); [2012] 144 Con LR 72; [2013] EWCA Civ 577;
[2013] 4 All ER 377 (CA)........................................................................ 2-17, 2-44, 18-78
Amsalem v Ravid [2008] EWHC 3028 (TCC) ................................................................ 5-45
Amstrad plc v Seagate Technology Inc (1998) 86 BLR ...............13-128, 16-09, 18-45, 18-46
 Table of Cases xxvii

Anchorage Asphalt Paving Co v Lewis (1981) 629 P 2d 65 (SC of Alaska) ..................... 7-55
And So To Bed Ltd v Dixon [2001] FSR 47........................................................ 19-45, 21-64
Andrews v Barnett Waddingham LLP [2006] EWCA Civ 93 .......................... 14-132, 14-139
Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting Ltd v Johnson & Higgins Ltd
[2001] UKHL 51; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 157 (HL) ................3-47, 14-145, 14-159, 14-164
Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1972] 1 QB 60 (CA) ..........................2-17, 2-18, 18-61, 18-64
Anglo-African Shipping Co of New York Inc v J Mortner Ltd
[1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81; [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 610 (CA) ............................... 15-45, 16-31
Anglo-Continental Holidays Ltd v Typaldos Lines (London) Ltd
[1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 61 (CA).................................................................................... 18-45
Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd
[1951] 1 All ER 873 .................................................................................................. 18-28
Angove’s Pty Ltd v Bailey [2016] UKSC 47; [2016] 1 WLR 3179 (SC) ........................... 5-54
Apeco of Canada Ltd v Windmill Place [1978] 2 SCR 385 ............................................. 5-40
Apotex Inc v Global Drug Ltd, 2 October 2010 (Ontario CA) ...................................... 18-77
Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406 (CA).........................................2-05, 4-87, 4-172, 4-179
Arab Bank plc v John D Wood Commercial Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 857 .................. 7-28, 16-129
Arbitration between R&H Hall Ltd and WH Pim Junior & Co Ltd,
Re see R & H Hall Ltd v WH Pim Junr & Co Ltd
Arbory Group Ltd v West Craven Insurance Services (a firm)
[2007] PNLR 23 ...........................................................................3-103, 7-20, 9-49, 16-93
Archbold’s Freightage Ltd v Wilson [1974] IRLR 10 (NIRC) ............................... 5-34, 15-52
Ardennes, The see SS Ardennes (Cargo Owners) v SS Ardennes (Owners)
Argentino, The (1888) 13 PD 191 (CA); (1889) 14 App Cas 519 (HL) ......... 6-26, 6-33, 6-75
Argonaftis, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 487 .................................4-199, 4-231, 4-234, 16-224
Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 185 (HL) ............................... 4-262
Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd (No 4) [2003] EWHC 687 (Comm)................................... 15-42
Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Strange 505 .................................................................... 18-20
Aronson v Mologa Holzindustrie AG (1927) 32 Com Cas 276 (CA) ............................ 16-95
Arpad, The [1934] P 189, [1934] All ER Rep 326 (CA) ...............4-105, 4-108, 4-111, 4-137
Arrowhead Capital Finance Ltd v KPMG LLP [2012] EWHC 1801 (Comm) ............... 16-65
Aruna Mills Ltd v Dhanrajmal Gobindram (The Leipzig) [1968] 1 QB 655 .................... 6-06
Aryeh v Lawrence Kostoris Son Ltd [1967] Lloyd’s Rep 63 (CA) ....................... 4-103, 4-117
A/S D/S Heimdal v Questier & Co Ltd (1949) 82 Ll L Rep 452 ................ 4-216, 4-231, 8-07
AS Latvijas Krajbanka v Antonov [2016] EWHC 1679 (Comm) .................................... 7-47
Asamera Oil Corp Ltd v Sea Oil & General Corp [1979] 1 SCR 633
(SC of Canada) ................................................................ 4-136, 9-11, 9-24, 16-19, 16-49,
17-26, 17-30, 17-32, 17-37
Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441 (HL)................... 4-60, 20-08
Ashworth v Wells (1898) 78 LT 136 (CA) ....................................................................... 4-54
Asia Star, The [2010] 2 SLR 1154 (Singapore CA) ........................................................ 15-50
ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England (The Amer Energy)
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293 ................................................................................... 6-05, 8-05
Aspden v Webbs Poultry and Meat Group (Holdings) Ltd [1996] IRLR 521 .............. 16-120
Astle v CBRE Ltd [2015] EWHC 3189 (Ch) ............................................................... 14-127
Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1 (HC of Australia) ........................................ 15-116
Astor Properties Ltd v Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society [1936]
1 All ER 531................................................................................................................ 7-09
Astrakhan, The [1910] P 172 .......................................................................................... 6-74
AstraZeneca AB v KRKA dd Novo Mesto [2015] EWCA Civ 484................................ 18-91
xxviii Table of Cases

AstraZeneca UK Ltd v Albermarle International Corp [2011]

EWHC 1574 (Comm).............................................................................................. 14-179
ATA v American Express Bank Ltd, 17 June 1998 (CA) ........................ 13-106, 18-57, 18-97
Attica Sea Carriers Corp v Ferrostaal Poseidon Bulk Reederei
(The Puerto Buitrago) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 250 (CA) ......................... 4-172, 16-34; 16-36
Attorney General v Blake [1998] Ch 439 (CA); [2001]
AC 268 (HL) ....................................................... 1-16, 1-19, 1-37, 2-36, 2-41, 2-42, 6-72,
22-03, 22-09, 22-10, 23-09–23-14, 23-17
Attorney General v Geothermal Produce New Zealand Ltd
[1987] 2 NZLR 348 (NZ CA) ........................................................................ 16-94, 18-89
Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10;
[2009] 1 WLR 1988 (PC) ............................................................................................ 1-55
Attorney General of British Virgin Islands v Hartwell [2004] UKPC 12;
[2004] 1 WLR 1273 (PC) ........................................................................................ 16-247
Attorney General of Ghana v Texaco Overseas Tankships Ltd
(The Texaco Melbourne) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 471 (CA);
[1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 473 (HL).............................................................. 1-68, 4-222, 4-224
Attorney General of Zambia v Meer Care & Desai (a firm) [2007]
EWHC 1540 (Ch)...................................................................................................... 16-75
Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2012] EWHC 1468 (QB) ................................... 7-47, 7-49
Automotive Latch Systems Ltd v Honeywell International Inc
[2008] EWHC 2171 (Comm) ......................................................................... 13-42, 13-55
AW Group Ltd v Taylor Walton (a firm) [2013] EWHC 2610 (Ch);
[2014] EWCA Civ 592 ............................................... 4-130, 13-12, 14-143, 16-07, 17-09
Axa Insurance Ltd v Akther & Darby [2009] EWCA Civ 1166;
[2010] 1 WLR 1662 (CA).................................................................... 16-65, 20-02, 20-09
Axa Insurance UK plc v Cunningham Lindsey United Kingdom
[2007] EWHC 3023 (TCC) ............................................ 6-07, 9-49, 14-80, 15-105, 19-76
Ayton v RSM Bentley Jennison [2015] EWCA Civ 1120;
[2016] 1 WLR 1281 (CA)............................................................................................ 1-24
Azzurri Communications Ltd v International Telecommunications
Equipment Ltd [2013] EWPCC 17 .................................................2-27, 2-28, 2-30, 20-20
B, Re [2008] UKHL 35; [2009] 1 AC 11 (HL) .............................................................. 12-01
Babcock FATA Ltd v Addison [1988] QB 280 (CA) ........................................................ 5-35
Bacardi-Martini Beverages Ltd v Thomas Hardy Packaging Ltd [2002] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 62; [2002] EWCA Civ 549; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 379 (CA) ...................... 4-63, 20-08
Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010] UKSC 35;
[2011] 1 AC 380 (SC)................................................................................................ 23-04
Bacciottini v Gotelee and Goldsmith (a firm) [2016] EWCA Civ 170;
[2016] 4 WLR 98 (CA)................................................................................. 16-45, 16-171
Bacon v Cooper (Metals) Ltd [1982] 1 All ER 397 .........................4-70, 6-34, 6-51, 14-164,
15-105, 16-89
Bacon v Howard Kennedy (a firm) [1999] PNLR 1 ..................................................... 13-113
Badenach v Calvert [2016] HCA 18 .............................................................................. 13-79
Bahamas (Inagua) Sisal Plantation Ltd v Griffin (1897) 14 TLR 139 .............................. 7-09
Bailey v Bullock [1950] 2 All ER 1167 .......................................................................... 19-74
Bain v Fothergill (1874) LR 7 HL 158 (HL) ......................................................... 1-36, 4-268
Bainton v Hallam Ltd (1920) 60 SCR 325 (SC of Canada) ........................................... 4-130
Baker v Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [1996]
LRLR 353 (CA); [1998] 1 WLR 974 (HL) ......................................................... 7-47, 7-48
Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 (HL) ................................................................... 16-229
 Table of Cases xxix

Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Power plc (1994)

71 BLR 20 (HL) .......................................................................2-11, 14-33, 14-48, 14-164
Ball v Banner [2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 56 ..................................................................... 14-188
Ball v Druces & Attlee (a firm) (No 2) [2004] EWHC 1402 (QB) ...................... 3-101, 13-02
Balmoral Group Ltd v Rae, 12 November 1999 (EAT) ................................................. 13-47
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CL 344 (HC Australia).................................... 19-08
Banbury v Bank of Montreal [1918] AC 626 (HL).......................................................... 1-30
Banco de Portugal v Waterlow & Sons Ltd [1932] AC 452 (HL) ...................... 15-47, 15-51,
20-06, 21-52
Bank of America Canada v Mutual Trust Co [2002] 2 SCR 601
(SC of Canada) ................................................................................................. 7-07, 23-08
Bank of America NA v CD Smith Motor Co (2003) 106 SW 3d 425
(SC of Arkansas).................................................................................... 7-30, 14-10, 18-89
Bank of Credit & Commerce International SA v Ali (No 2) [1999] 4
All ER 83......................................................................................... 12-09, 13-112, 14-182
Bank of Credit & Commerce International SA v Ali (No 3) [2002]
EWCA Civ 82; [2002] 3 All ER 750 (CA) ...................................................... 13-80, 13-88
Bank of Ireland v Faithful & Gould Ltd [2014] EWHC 2217 (TCC) .......................... 14-128
Bank of Ireland v Watts Group plc [2017] EWHC 1667 (TCC) .................................. 16-103
Bank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association
(Bermuda) Ltd (The Good Luck) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514 .................................... 15-116
Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Property Investment Co Ltd 1998 SCLR 531
(Court of Session, IH) ....................................................................................... 7-15, 21-39
Bank of Scotland v Qutb [2012] EWCA Civ 1661 .......................................................... 9-04
Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1995] 2
All ER 769; [1995] QB 375 (CA); [1997] 1 AC 191 (HL) ........3-04, 13-20, 15-39, 16-194
Banque Keyser Ullmann SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd,
11 December 1987 ............................................................................................. 7-45, 7-49
Banque Keyser Ullmann SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd [1990] 1 QB 665 ........ 15-120
Barber v Somerset County Council [2004] UKHL 13; [2004] 1 WLR 1089 (HL) ......... 19-81
Barclays Bank plc v Christie Owen & Davies Ltd [2016] EWHC 2351 (Ch)............... 16-103
Barclays Bank plc v Fairclough Building Ltd [1995] QB 214 (CA) ................ 15-116, 15-122,
16-02
Barclays Bank plc v TBS & V Ltd [2016] EWHC 2948 (QB) ...................................... 16-163
Barclays Bank plc v Weeks Legg & Dean [1999] QB 309 (CA) ................................... 15-122
Barnett Waddington Trustees (1980) Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc
[2015] EWHC 2435 (Ch); [2017] EWHC 834 (Ch) .................................................... 7-15
Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd [1980] 1 Ch 515 ................................................ 16-75
Basic Inc v Levinson (1988) 485 US 224 (SC) ............................................................... 13-20
Basnett v J & A Jackson Ltd [1976] IRLR 154 .............................................. 16-111, 16-120
Bates v Barrow Ltd [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 680 ............................................................. 16-240
Batty v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd [1978] QB 554 (CA) ........................... 19-74
Baturina v Chistyakov [2017] EWHC 1049 (Comm) ................................ 1-41, 16-64, 18-66
Baxendale v London, Chatham & Dover Railway Co (1873) LR 10 Exch 35 ............... 20-28
BDG Roof-Bond Ltd v Douglas [2000] 1 BCLC 401....................................................... 3-81
Beach v Reed Corrugated Cases Ltd [1956] WLR 807 .................................................. 13-36
Bear Stearns Bank plc v Forum Global Equity [2007]
EWHC 1576 (Comm)................................... 4-99, 4-110, 4-117, 4-126, 9-11, 9-24, 17-26
Beary v Pall Mall Investments [2005] EWCA Civ 415........................... 13-12, 14-157, 17-49
Bee v Jenson [2007] EWCA Civ 923; [2007]
4 All ER 791 (CA) ............................................. 6-08, 6-68, 6-76, 16-130, 16-136, 16-153
xxx Table of Cases

Beechwood Birmingham Ltd v Hoyer Group UK Ltd [2010]

EWCA Civ 647.................................................................................6-61, 6-63, 6-65, 6-78
Bella Casa Ltd v Vinestone Ltd [2005] EWHC 2807 (TCC) ................................... 6-65, 8-11
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 (HC of Australia) .................... 4-196, 19-19, 19-21
Bellingham v Dhillon [1973] QB 304 (CA) ................................................................... 16-80
Bem Dis A Turk Ticaret S/A Tr v International Agri Trade Co Ltd
(The Selda) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 729 (CA) ................................................................. 5-07
Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson UK Ltd [1998] 1 QB 87 (CA) ............. 4-32, 4-52,
4-71–4-73, 4-93, 4-96, 4-99, 4-101, 4-125, 4-230, 4-251, 16-195
Benedetti v Sawiris [2009] EWHC 1806 (Ch); [2010] EWCA Civ 1427;
[2013] UKSC 50 ............................................................................................... 7-47, 19-57
Benedict White v Paul Davidson & Taylor (a firm) [2004]
EWCA Civ 1511........................................................................................... 13-12, 14-157
Benhaim v St-Germain [2016] 2 SCR 352 (SC of Canada) ............................................ 18-23
Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd [1995] QB 137 (CA)...............15-79, 16-10, 16-213, 16-214,
16-224, 16-227, 16-228
Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220 ................ 4-210, 6-70
Berry v British Transport Commission [1962] 1 QB 306 (CA) ...................................... 20-26
Berryman v Hounslow London Borough Council [1997] PIQR P83 (CA) .......... 16-12, 19-81
Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 (HL) ................................ 1-07, 7-37, 21-28, 21-54, 21-56
Bevan Investments Ltd v Blackhall and Struthers (No 2)
[1978] 2 NZLR 97 (NZCA) .................................................................. 4-166, 6-39, 16-94
BGC Capital Markets (Switzerland) LLC v Rees [2011] EWHC 2009 (QB)......... 2-44, 22-18
Biffa Waste Services Ltd v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese GmbH [2009] PNLR 5 ........... 20-41
Bigg v Howard Son & Gooch [1990] 1 EGLR 173 .............................3-57, 3-58, 3-82, 3-83,
6-07, 6-70, 19-74
Biggin & Co Ltd v Permanite Ltd [1951] 1 KB 422 ......... 4-61–4-63, 4-65, 4-87, 4-91, 6-44,
16-08, 16-25, 18-15, 20-08,
20-14, 20-19, 20-21
Bir Holdings Ltd v Mehta [2014] EWHC 3903 (Ch)................................. 9-16, 9-29, 14-165
Birmingham Corp v Sowsbery [1970] RTR 84 .............................................. 6-61, 6-63, 6-78
Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Ltd v Phillips [1998] PNLR 468 .................... 7-14
Birse Construction Ltd v Eastern Telegraph Co Ltd [2004] EWHC 2512 (TCC) .......... 4-199,
16-195
Blackgold Trading Ltd of Monrovia v Amare SpA di Navigazione of Genoa
(The Almare Seconda) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 433 ......................................................... 8-02
Blackwood v Saunders & Co [2007] EWHC 3504 (QB) ............................................... 19-28
Bliss v South East Thames Regional Health Authority [1987] ICR 700 (CA) ..... 19-03, 19-06
Blue Circle Industries plc v Ministry of Defence [1999] Ch 289 (CA) .................. 6-16, 16-56
Blue Sky One v Mahan Air [2010] EWHC 631 (Comm) ............................................... 16-37
Board of Governors of the Hospitals for Sick Children v McLaughlin &
Harvey plc (1987) 19 Con LR 25 ........................................................ 2-34, 4-169, 15-105
Board of Trustees of National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside v AEW
Architects and Designers Ltd [2013] EWHC 2403 (TCC) ................................. 1-27, 1-28,
4-166, 7-55
Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 (HL) .......................................................... 23-03, 23-07
Bodlewell, The [1907] P 286 .................................................................................. 6-54, 6-57
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582.......................... 13-68
Bold v Brough, Nicholson & Hall Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 201 ............................................ 13-56
Bollom v Byas Mosley [1999] Lloyd’s LR 598............................................................... 16-06
Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] 1 WLR 1009 (CA).............................................................. 20-24
 Table of Cases xxxi

Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft für Mineralöle mbH & Co v Petroplus

Marketing AG (The Mercini Lady) [2012] EWHC 3009 (Comm) ......... 4-87, 4-208, 4-231
Borealis AB v Geogas Trading SA [2010] EWHC 2789 (Comm);
[2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 482 .............................................. 2-23, 6-79, 14-50, 15-59, 15-113,
16-03, 16-05, 16-11
Borries v Hutchinson (1865) 18 CB (NS) 445 ..................................4-27, 4-117, 6-05, 20-07
Bostock & Co Ltd v Nicholson & Sons Ltd [1904] 1 KB 725 ............................ 15-59, 16-05
Bottin v Venson [2006] EWHC 3112 (Ch) .................................................... 9-14, 9-16, 9-34
Bovis Lend Lease Ltd v RD Fire Protection Ltd (2003)
89 Con LR 69..................................................................................... 19-45, 21-49, 21-51,
21-59, 21-64
Bowlay Logging Ltd v Domtar Ltd (1978) 87 DLR (3d) 325 (British Columbia SC);
(1982) 135 DLR (3d) 179........................................................................ 2-17, 2-44, 18-76
Boynton v Willers [2003] EWCA Civ 904 ..................................................................... 19-74
Boyo v Lambeth London Borough Council [1994] ICR 727 (CA) ................................. 13-45
BP plc v Aon Ltd (No 2) [2006] EWHC 424 (Comm); [2006]
1 Lloyd’s Rep IR 577 .............................. 4-30, 16-167, 20-14, 20-16, 20-18, 20-19, 20-22
BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21; [2017]
2 WLR 1029 (SC) ..................................... 2-27, 14-106, 14-111, 14-118, 14-119, 14-138,
14-139, 14-144, 14-147, 14-182, 15-10
Brace v Calder [1895] 2 QB 253 (CA)......................................................................... 16-110
Bracewell v Appleby [1975] 1 Ch 408 ........................................................................... 10-03
Bradburn v Great Western Railway Co (1874) LR 10 Exch 1 ..................................... 16-128
Brading v F McNeill & Co [1946] 1 Ch 145 ................................................................. 4-268
Braid v WL Highway & Sons (1964) 191 EG 433 ............................................. 17-67, 20-02
Branchett v Beaney [1992] 3 All ER 910 (CA) .............................................................. 19-31
Brandeis Goldschmidt & Co v Western Transport Ltd [1981] QB 864 (CA) .......... 6-53, 7-25
Brent London Borough Council v Carmel (1995) 28 HLR 203 (CA) ............................ 19-32
Bridge UK.com Ltd v Abbey Pynford plc [2007] EWHC 728 (TCC) ............................... 2-25
Bridging Loans Ltd v Toombs [2017] EWCA Civ 205................................................... 16-65
Bristol and West Building Society v A Kramer & Co (a firm), 26 January 1995 .......... 15-122
Bristol and West Building Society v Fancy & Jackson (a firm)
[1997] 4 All ER 582 .........................................................14-139, 14-141, 14-146, 14-147
Bristol and West Building Society v May May & Merrimans
(No 2) [1997] 3 All ER 206 ..................................................................................... 16-129
Brit Inns Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2012] EWHC 2143 (TCC) ........................... 4-168, 4-169
Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East Ltd [2007] SGCA 47
(Singapore CA) .............................................................................4-66, 4-75, 20-08, 20-19
British & Commonwealth Holdings plc v Quadrex Holdings Inc
[1995] CLC 1169 .......................................................................3-94, 14-61, 16-99, 17-29
British Columbia and Vancouver Island Spar, Lumber and Saw Mill Co
v Nettleship (1868) LR 3 CP 499 ..................................... 6-51, 6-56, 14-09, 14-40, 14-43
British Guiana Credit Corp v Da Silva [1965] 1 WLR 248 (PC).................................... 13-45
British Midland Tool Ltd v Midland International Tooling Ltd [2003]
EWHC 466 (Ch); [2003] 2 BCLC 523....................................................................... 15-15
British Motor Trade Association v Gilbert [1951] 2 All ER 641.................................... 10-03
British Racing Drivers’ Club Ltd v Hextall Erskine & Co [1996]
3 All ER 667................................................................................................. 14-153, 20-28
British-Russian Gazette and Trade Outlook Ltd v Associated
Newspapers Ltd [1933] 2 KB 616 (CA) ....................................................................... 9-04
British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956] AC 185 (HL) ................................... 13-126
xxxii Table of Cases

British Westinghouse Co v Underground Electric Railways Co of London

[1912] 3 KB 128 (CA); [1912] AC 673 (HL) ...... 4-106, 4-239, 5-29, 15-14–15-16, 15-20,
15-81, 15-89, 15-90, 15-99, 15-101,
15-105, 16-39, 16-77, 16-79,
17-32, 18-02, 18-95
Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 20;
[2002] EWCA Civ 548; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 368 (CA) ......................... 4-63, 5-41, 15-50,
18-47, 20-08, 20-18
Broadoak Properties Ltd v Young & White [1989] EGLR 263........................................ 3-54
Broadway Photoplay Co v World Film Corp 225 NY 104 (1919) (NYCA) ................... 18-31
Broker House Insurance Services Ltd v OJS Law [2010] EWHC 3816 (Ch) ................ 14-126
Brown v Cuff Roberts, 12 February 1996 (CA)............................................................... 3-04
Brown v KMR Services Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 385; [1995]
4 All ER 598 (CA) ...................................................... 14-50, 14-57, 14-60, 14-164, 16-75
Brown v Muller (1872) LR 7 Ex 319 ............................................................................ 15-45
Brown v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council [2012]
EWCA Civ 1384........................................................................................................ 11-14
Brown v Southall & Knight [1980] IRLR 130 (EAT) .................................................... 16-34
Browning v Brachers (a firm) [2005] EWCA Civ 753 ............................ 13-92, 13-103, 18-23
Browning v War Office [1963] QB 750 (CA) .............................................................. 16-151
Bryant v Macklin [2005] EWCA Civ 762................................................ 4-161, 4-166, 4-206
BS & N Ltd (BVI) v Micado Shipping Ltd (Malta) (The Seaflower)
(No 2) [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 169 ......................................................................... 13-24
BSkyB Ltd v HP Enterprise Services UK Ltd (No 2) (2010)
131 Con LR 42........................................................................................... 13-128, 13-129
Buckingham v Francis [1986] 2 All ER 738 .................................................................... 9-16
Bulkhaul Ltd v Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1452;
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 353 (CA)................................ 5-08, 5-16, 5-53, 15-45, 15-70, 15-76
Bunge Corp v Tradax Export SA [1981] 1 WLR 711 (HL) ........................................... 13-40
Bunge SA v Kyla Shipping Co Ltd [2012] EWHC 3522 (Comm) ................................ 16-134
Bunge SA v Nidera BV [2015] UKSC 43; [2015]
3 All ER 1082 (SC) ...................................... 4-25, 4-27, 4-32, 13-43, 15-10, 15-42, 16-51,
16-107, 16-108, 17-08, 17-17
Bunning v Lyric Theatre Ltd (1894) 71 LT 396 ............................................................. 18-41
Burdis v Livsey [2002] EWCA Civ 510; [2003]
QB 36 (CA) ............................................. 1-42, 4-155, 4-251, 4-252, 4-254, 4-255, 15-13,
15-15, 15-106, 16-154, 16-155, 16-186
Burns v MAN Automotive (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 653
(HC of Australia).............................................................................................. 4-78, 16-92
Butler-Creagh v Hersham [2011] EWHC 2525 (QB)....................................................... 3-44
Butterworth v Kingsway Motors Ltd [1954] 2 All ER 694 .............4-60, 4-217, 4-243, 20-08
Bwyllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd
Waterworks Co [1903] AC 426 (HL) ........................................................................ 17-05
C Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (The Heron II) [1966] 2 QB 695 (CA);
[1969] 1 AC 350 (HL) ............................ 1-12, 1-36, 4-128, 4-226, 6-09, 6-10, 6-14, 6-45,
14-10, 14-14, 14-24, 14-31, 14-41, 14-44, 14-48,
14-51, 14-52, 14-54, 14-55, 14-57, 14-76,
14-85, 14-164, 14-169, 16-207, 18-18
C Sharpe & Co Ltd v Nosawa & Co [1917] 2 KB 814 ................................................. 17-26
CA Duquemin Ltd v Slater (1993) 65 BLR 124............................................................. 4-266
C&P Haulage Co Ltd v Middleton [1983] 1 WLR 1461 (CA) ........................... 18-65, 18-76
 Table of Cases xxxiii

Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd [1999] 3 LRC 457 (SC of Canada)................ 10-08
Cadoks Pty Ltd v Wallace Westley & Vigar Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 167 ............................ 14-28
Calabar Properties Ltd v Stitcher [1984]
1 WLR 287 (CA) .......................................... 2-05, 4-199, 6-07, 8-17, 8-18, 16-195, 19-32
Caledonia North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd
[2000] Lloyd’s Rep IR 249 ........................................................................................ 14-77
Caledonia North Sea Ltd v Norton (No 2) [2002] UKHL 4; [2002] SCLR 346 (HL) .... 14-77
Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1427; [2009] Ch 330 (CA) ........ 11-07,
11-09, 14-17, 14-159, 15-38, 16-101
Camerata Property Inc v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd
[2012] EWHC 7 (Comm) ........................................................................................ 14-132
Campbell Mostyn (Provisions) Ltd v Barnett Trading Co [1954]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 65 (CA) ...................................................................................... 5-15, 17-24
Campin v Capels (1984) 461 NE 2d 712 (CA of Indiana) ............................................. 4-261
Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Kelvin Shipping Co Ltd (The Metagama)
(1927) 29 Ll L Rep 253 (HL) .................................................................................... 15-97
Cancer Research Campaign v Ernest Brown & Co [1998] PNLR 592 ........................ 13-113
Candlewood Navigation Corp Ltd v Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd
(The Mineral Transporter) [1986] AC 1 (PC) .......................................................... 16-245
Canlin Ltd v Thiokol Fibres Canada Ltd (1983) 142 DLR (3d) 450 (Ontario CA) ........ 4-69,
18-18, 18-33, 18-34, 18-46
Cant v AG Becker & Co, Inc 379 F Supp 972 (1974) (Northern District of Illinois) ..... 16-54
Cantor Fitzgerald International v Horkulak [2008] EWCA Civ 1287 ........................... 13-55
Capita Alternative Fund Services (Guernsey) Ltd v Drivers Jonas (a firm) [2011]
EWHC 2336 (Comm); [2012] EWCA Civ 1407 ........................3-82, 13-14, 13-68, 13-69,
13-126, 14-124, 16-63, 18-14,
18-15, 18-25, 18-30
Capital Home Loans Ltd v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [2011] 3 EGLR 153 .............. 16-164
Carbopego-Abastecimento de Combustiveis SA v AMCI Export Corp [2006]
EWHC 72 (Comm); [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 736 .......................................................... 17-26
Carnegie v Giessen [2005] EWCA Civ 191; [2005] 1 WLR 2510 (CA) ........................... 1-59
Carisbrooke Shipping CV5 v Bird Port Ltd (The Charlotte C) [2005]
EWHC 1974 (Admlty); [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 626 ....................................................... 6-33
Carroll v Kynaston [2010] EWCA Civ 1404; [2011] QB 959 (CA) ............................... 20-26
Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government
[1952] AC 292 (HL) ................................................13-73, 13-78, 16-213–16-215, 16-224
Cassa di Risparmio della Repubblica di San Marino SpA v Barclays Bank Ltd
[2011] EWHC 484 (Comm) ........................................................................... 17-54, 17-55
Cassaboglou v Gibb (1883) 11 QBD 797 ........................................................................ 3-20
Catlin Estates Ltd v Carter-Jonas (a firm) [2005] EWHC 2315 (TCC) ............... 21-12, 21-22
CCC Films (London) Ltd v Impact Quadrant Films Ltd
[1985] QB 16 ...........................................................................4-233, 18-65, 18-68, 18-80
CF Partners (UK) LLP v Barclays Bank [2014] EWHC 3049 (Ch)................................. 22-05
Chagger v Abbey National plc [2009] EWCA Civ 1202;
[2010] ICR 397 (CA).................................................. 13-49, 13-50, 13-52, 16-242, 18-40
Challinor v Juliet Bellis & Co [2013] EWHC 620 (Ch) .......................................... 7-49, 7-50
Chamberlain v Parker (1871) 45 NY 569 ..................................................................... 22-14
Chandris v Argo Insurance Co Ltd [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 65 .................................. 9-48, 9-49
Channel Island Ferries Ltd v Cenargo Navigation Ltd (The Rozel)
[1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 161 .........................................................4-161, 4-165, 4-170, 4-172
Channon v Lindley Johnstone (a firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 353 ........................... 19-11, 19-77
xxxiv Table of Cases

Channon v Ward [2017] EWCA Civ 13 ...................................................................... 13-115

Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786 (CA)............... 13-54, 13-80, 13-112, 14-39, 18-18, 18-49
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232 (HC of Australia) ..................... 14-88, 14-154, 14-156
Charlotte, The [1908] P 206 (CA) ............................................................................... 16-201
Charter v Sullivan [1957] 2 QB 117 (CA) ....................................................................... 5-41
Charterhouse Credit Co v Tolly [1963] 2 QB 683 (CA) ......................................... 6-69, 8-06
Chekiang, The see Admiralty Commissioners v Owners of the SS Chekiang
Chester v Afshar [2002] EWCA Civ 724; [2003] QB 356 (CA); [2004] UKHL 41;
[2005] 1 AC 134 (HL) ................................... 13-02, 13-12, 14-87, 14-88, 14-154, 14-155
Chiemgauer Membran und Zeltbau GmbH v New Millenium
Experience Co Ltd (No 2) [2002] BPIR 42 ..................................................... 13-22, 13-24
Chiodi v De Marney [1988] 2 EGLR 64 (CA) ............................................................... 19-74
Choil Trading SA v Sahara Energy Resources Ltd [2010]
EWHC 374 (Comm)............................................................................ 4-57, 15-96, 16-158
Christianson v North Hill News Inc (1993) 106 DLR (4th) 747
(Ontario CA) .................................................................................................. 15-76, 15-91
CHS Inc Iberica SL v Far East Marine SA (M/V Devon) [2012]
EWHC 3747 (Comm)..................................................... 4-95, 4-208, 4-231, 16-79, 20-26
Chubb v Dean [2013] EWHC 1282 (Ch) ........................................................................ 1-33
Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding [2010] EWCA Civ 981 .......................................... 15-18
City & Metropolitan Properties Ltd v Greycroft Ltd [1987]
1 WLR 1085.....................................................................................2-27, 8-11, 8-17, 8-18
City Axis Ltd v Daniel P Jackson (1998) 64 Con LR 84.............................................. 16-114
City of Bradford Metropolitan Council v Arora [1991] 2 QB 507 ................................ 23-32
City of Calgary v Costello 1997 ABCA 281 (CA of Alberta)......................................... 17-26
City of New Orleans v Firemen’s Charitable Association (1891) 9 So 486 ............. 2-47, 2-50
Clack v Wrigleys Solicitors LLP [2013] EWHC 413 (Ch) .............................................. 23-01
Clark v BET plc [1997] IRLR 348................................................................................. 13-55
Clark v Macourt [2012] NSWCA 367; [2013] HCA 56 (HC of Australia) ......... 4-40, 4-214,
16-86, 16-146
Clark v Turnbull [2017] CSOH 4 .................................................................................. 19-11
Clarke v Lloyds TSB Bank plc [2002] EWHC 1025 (TCC) .................................... 8-13, 8-14
Clarke v Marsiglia (1845) 1 Denio 317 (NY) ................................................................ 16-37
Clayton-Greene v De Courville (1920) 36 TLR 790 .................................................... 16-111
Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International Ltd (The Alaskan Trader)
[1984] 1 All ER 129 ....................................................................................... 15-45, 16-36
Clef Aquitaine SARL v Laporte Materials (Barrow) Ltd [2001]
QB 488 (CA) ......................................................................................... 3-87, 3-100, 18-95
Clegg v Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2002] EWHC 943 (QB);
[2003] EWCA Civ 320; [2004] Lloyd’s Rep 32 (CA) .................................... 4-165, 16-107
Clyde Navigation Trustees v Bowring Steamship Co (1929)
34 Ll L Rep 319 (Court of Session) ............................................................................. 6-55
Clydebank Engineering Co v Don Jose Ramos Ysquierdo y Castaneda
[1905] AC 6 (HL) .............................................................................. 4-260, 11-10, 16-205
CMA CGM SA v Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co Ltd [2008] EWHC 2791
(Comm); [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 213 ........................................................................... 10-06
Coastal (Bermuda) Petroleum Ltd v VTT Vulcan Petroleum SA (No 2)
(The Marine Star) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 629; [1996]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 (CA) .................................................... 4-27, 4-37, 4-117, 4-133, 4-220
Coastal International Trading Ltd v Maroil AG [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92 .......... 4-117, 14-78
Cobb v Great Western Railway Co [1894] AC 419 (HL) ............................................ 16-236
 Table of Cases xxxv

Cockburn v Alexander (1848) 6 CB 791 ....................................................................... 13-34

Cockburn v Trusts and Guarantee Co (1917) 55 SCR 264 (SC of Canada)........ 15-89, 16-70
Cointat v Myham & Son [1913] 2 KB 220 ................................................................... 18-45
Coles v Hetherton [2012] EWHC 1599 (Comm); [2013] EWCA Civ 1704 (CA) ......... 4-179,
4-234, 4-234, 4-252, 4-255, 16-84, 16-123, 16-125, 16-128, 16-130
Colledge v Bass Mitchells & Butlers Ltd [1988] 1 All ER 536 (CA) ............................ 16-120
Collins v Howard [1949] 2 All ER 324 (CA) .................................................................. 5-49
Comau UK Ltd v Lotus Lightweight Structures Ltd [2014]
EWHC 2122 (Comm)................................................................................................ 13-43
Commercial Fibres (Ireland) Ltd v Zabaida [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 27 ................. 15-76, 16-09
Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1992)
174 CLR 64 (HC of Australia) ...................................... 5-55, 13-24, 13-37, 13-53, 13-57,
18-63, 18-65, 18-68, 18-72
Compania Financiera Soleada SA v Hamoor Tanker Corp Inc
(The Borag) [1981] 1 WLR 274 (CA) .................................................... 7-17, 15-16, 16-89
Compania Naviera Maropan S/A v Bowaters Lloyd Pulp and Paper
Mills Ltd [1955] 2 QB 58 .......................................................................................... 16-15
Comyn Ching & Co Ltd v Oriental Tube Co Ltd (1979) 17 BLR 47 (CA) ........ 20-18, 20-19,
20-21, 20-29
Connaught Restaurants Ltd v Indoor Leisure Ltd [1992] 2 EGLR 252;
[1994] 4 All ER 834 (CA)........................................................................................ 16-112
Conquest v Ebbetts [1896] AC 490 (HL) ...................................................................... 4-198
Consett, The (1880) 5 PD 229 ........................................................................................ 6-33
Contigroup Companies Inc v Glencore AG [2004] EWHC 2750 (Comm);
[2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 241 ...............................................................6-05, 6-18, 6-20, 20-07
Cook v Swinfen [1967] 1 WLR 457 ................................................................... 19-11, 19-80
Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC 556 (HL) ....................................................................... 7-57
Copley v Lawn [2009] EWCA Civ 580 .......................................................... 16-116, 16-117
Corbett v Bond Pearce [2001] 3 All ER 769 (CA) ......................................................... 21-71
Corfield v DS Bosher & Co [1992] 1 EGLR 163 ......................................................... 13-107
Corisand Investments Ltd v Druce & Co [1978] EGLR 86 .................................... 3-82, 7-28
Cornelius v De Taranto [2001] EWCA Civ 1511 .......................................................... 19-09
Cornwall Gravel Co Ltd v Purolator Courier Ltd (1978) 83 DLR (3d)
267 (Ontario HC); (1979) 115 DLR (3d) 511 (Ontario CA);
[1980] 2 SCR 118 (SC of Canada)............................................................................... 2-04
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] 1 AC 884 (HL) .................................. 15-18, 15-127, 16-101
Cory v Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Co (1868)
LR 3 QB 181 (QBD)....................................................... 6-40, 6-41, 14-58, 14-74, 14-163
Cosemar SA v Marimarna Shipping Co Ltd (The Mathew)
[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323 ........................................................................... 16-103, 16-156
Cossey v Lonnkvist [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 885 (CA) .................................................. 14-159
Cottrill v Steyning and Littlehampton Building Society
[1966] 1 WLR 1083 .......................................................................... 4-237, 4-268, 18-101
County Ltd v Girozentrale Securities [1996] 3 All ER 834 (CA) ............ 15-57, 15-58, 16-05,
16-10, 16-103, 16-246
County Personnel (Employment Agency) Ltd v Pulver & Co
[1987] 1 WLR 916 (CA)................................................3-31–3-33, 3-51–3-52, 3-90, 3-96,
3-100, 17-11, 17-44, 17-57
Courthaulds Northern Spinning Ltd v Moosa [1984] ICR 218 (EAT) ........................... 16-41
Cowden v British Airways [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 653 .................................................... 19-13
Cox v Sloane, 19 July 2000 ....................................................................... 4-178, 6-07, 19-16
xxxvi Table of Cases

Credit Suisse AG v Arabian Aircraft & Equipment Leasing Co EC

[2013] EWCA Civ 1169 ............................................................................................ 18-28
Crédit Suisse v Beegas Nominees Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 803..................................... 8-11, 8-14
Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Co (CPC) [2003] EWHC 1510 (Ch);
[2004] EWCA Civ 637; [2007] 1 AC 333 (HL) ..................................... 3-87, 18-05, 18-06
Cremer v General Carriers SA [1974] 1 WLR 175 .......................................................... 7-47
Cressman v Coys of Kensington (Sales) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 47;
[2004] 1 WLR 2775 (CA)........................................................................................ 15-108
Crewe Services & Investment Corp v Silk [1998] 2 EGLR 1 (CA)...................... 4-187, 4-201
Cronin v Eircom Ltd [2007] 3 IR 104 (Irish HC) .......................................................... 18-43
Cross v David Martin & Mortimer (a firm) [1989] 1 EGLR 154 .........3-55, 3-58, 6-07, 6-70
Crosse & Crosse (a firm) v Lloyd’s Bank plc [2001]
EWCA Civ 366.................................................................................. 13-21, 14-95, 14-123
Croudace Construction Ltd v Cawoods Concrete Products Ltd
[1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 55 (CA)............................................................................. 6-05, 6-44
CTI Group Inc v Transclear SA (The Mary Nour) (No 2) [2007]
EWHC 2340 (Comm); [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 250 .................................................... 14-159
Cullinane v British ‘Rema’ Manufacturing Co Ltd [1954] 1 QB 292 (CA) .......... 4-39, 4-233,
4-237, 4-241, 18-07, 18-64
Culworth Estates Ltd v Society of Licensed Victuallers
[1991] 2 EGLR 54 (CA) ................................................................................. 4-164, 4-187
Cunliffe v Goodman [1950] 2 KB 237 (CA) .................................................................. 4-186
Cunningham v Harrison [1973] QB 942 (CA) ............................................... 16-123, 16-139
Curtis v Lockheed Martin UK Holdings Ltd [2008]
EWHC 2691 (Comm).......................................................................9-07, 9-37, 9-39, 9-45
Cutler v Vauxhall Motors Ltd [1971] 1 QB 418 (CA) ................................................. 16-230
Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2006] EWHC 2973 (Ch);
[2009] EWCA Civ 169 .............................................................................................. 13-17
Daily Office Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Shefford [1977] RTR 361 ........ 6-08, 16-42, 16-123
Dalwood Marine Co v Nordana Line A/S (The Elbrus) [2009]
EWHC 3394 (Comm); [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 315 ............................................... 5-45, 5-52
Damon Compania Naviera SA v Hapag-Lloyd International
SA [1985] 1 WLR 435 (CA) ........................................................................................ 7-35
Dampskibsselskabet ‘Norden’ A/S v Andre & Compagnie SA [2003]
EWHC 84 (Comm); [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 287 .......................................................... 16-51
Dancorp Developers v Auckland City Council [1991] 3 NZLR 337
(HC of New Zealand)................................................................................................ 13-12
Darbishire v Warran [1963] 1 WLR 1067 (CA) ..............................4-37, 4-54, 4-146, 4-161,
4-174, 4-179, 4-234, 15-42
Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd [1995]
1 WLR 68 (CA) ................................................ 4-170, 4-202, 21-04, 21-12, 21-13, 21-18,
21-20, 21-26, 21-42, 21-45
Dataliner Ltd v Vehicle Builders & Repairers Association,
27 August 1995 (CA) .................................................................2-17, 18-62, 18-65, 18-68
Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) Ltd [1949] 2 KB 291 (CA) ................................. 15-128
Davies v Taylor [1974] AC 207 (HL) ............................................................................ 12-01
Davis v Churchward Brook Haye & Co, 6 May 1993 (CA) ...............3-51, 3-98, 6-55, 18-86
Days Medical Aids v Pihsiang Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd
[2004] EWHC 44 (Comm) ........................................................................................ 13-37
De Beers UK Ltd v Atos Origin IT Services UK Ltd [2010] EWHC 3276 (TCC);
(2010) 134 Con LR 151 ........................................................................ 2-07, 4-199, 11-12
 Table of Cases xxxvii

De Jongh Weill v Mean Fiddler Holdings Ltd [2005] All ER (D) 331 ............................ 21-40
De La Bere v Pearson Ltd [1908] 1 KB 280 (CA) ........................................................ 16-247
Dean v Ainley [1987] 1 WLR 1729 (CA) ........................................................... 4-166, 4-200
Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd
[1971] 2 All ER 216 (CA).......................................................................................... 16-33
Deeny v Gooda Walker Ltd (No 2) [1995] STC 439 (CA); [1996]
1 WLR 426 (HL) ..................................................................................................... 13-127
Deeny v Gooda Walker Ltd (No 3) [1995] 1 WLR 1206 ................1-26, 1-27, 16-129, 20-02
Demarco v Perkins [2006] EWCA Civ 188 ................................................................... 19-11
Denaro Ltd v Onyx Bar & Café (Cambridge) Ltd [2011] NZHC 52 ................. 10-09, 23-06
Dent v Davis Blank Furniss (a firm) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 534 ................ 3-46, 3-67, 16-44,
17-49, 17-65
Derby Resources AG v Blue Corinth Marine Co Ltd
(The Athenian Harmony) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 410 .................................................. 4-179
Derby Resources AG v Blue Corinth Marine Co Ltd (No 2)
(The Athenian Harmony) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429 .................................................... 7-51
Derry v Peek (1887) 37 Ch D 541 (CA) .......................................................................... 9-19
Design 5 v Keniston Housing Association Ltd (1986) 10 Con LR 122 ........................ 16-127
Despina R, The see Services Europe Atlantique Sud v Stockholms
Rederiaktiebolag SVEA
Deutsche Bank AG v Total Global Steel Ltd [2012] EWHC 1201 (Comm) ..................... 4-27
Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) [2008] EWCA Civ 1086;
[2009] Ch 390 (CA) ....................................................................................... 23-03, 23-22
Devine v Jefferys [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 301 .............................................................. 16-148
Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728 (CA) ........................................................ 18-34
Dexters Ltd v Hill Crest Oil Co (Bradford) Ltd [1926] 1 KB 348 (CA) ........................... 4-65
Dexters Ltd v Schenker & Co (1923) 14 Ll L Rep 586 ................................................... 7-35
Diamond v Campbell-Jones [1961] Ch 22................................4-237, 4-268, 13-127, 18-101
Diamond Cutting Works Federation Ltd v Triefus & Co Ltd
[1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 216 ...................................................................... 4-40, 4-214, 16-86
Dickinson v Jones Alexander & Co [1993] 2 FLR 321 ...................................... 13-89, 19-11
Dickinson v Tesco plc [2013] EWCA Civ 36 ................................................................... 6-08
Dickson & Co v Devitt (1916) 86 LJKB 315................................................................. 16-06
Die Elbinger Actien-gesellschaft für Fabrication von Eisenbahn Materiel
v Armstrong (1874) LR 9 QB 473 ............................................................................. 14-78
Diesen v Samson 1971 SLT (Sh Ct) 49 .......................................................................... 19-08
Dillon v Twin State Gas & Electric Co (1932) 85 NH 449; 163 A 111
(SC of New Hampshire) ............................................................................................ 13-78
Dimond v Lovell [2000] QB 216 (CA);
[2002] 1 AC 384 (HL) .................... 4-155, 4-179, 4-234, 4-251–4-253, 4-255, 6-08, 6-60,
15-07, 15-91, 15-98, 15-99, 15-106, 16-42, 16-83, 16-89,
16-122, 16-154, 16-186
DNB Mortgages Ltd v Bullock & Lees [2000] PNLR 427 (CA) .................................... 16-65
Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd v Canterbury City Council [1980]
1 WLR 433 (CA) ........................................................... 4-166, 4-199, 7-55, 16-88, 16-92,
16-195, 17-11, 17-36
Dominion Mosaics & Tile Co Ltd v Trafalgar Trucking Co Ltd
[1990] 2 All ER 246 (CA).......................................................4-148, 4-181, 4-210, 15-105
Donnelly v Joyce [1974] QB 454 (CA) ........................................................... 16-123, 16-125
Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 All ER 749 (HL) ............................. 10-06
Doran v Delaney [1999] 1 IR 303 (Irish HC) ................................................................ 16-90
xxxviii Table of Cases

Double G Communications Ltd v News Group International Ltd

[2011] EWHC 961 (QB)...........................................................13-03, 18-21, 18-25, 18-98
Douglas v Glenvarigill Co Ltd [2010] CSOH 14 ..................................... 4-164, 4-208, 4-210
Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2003] EWHC 2629 (Ch); [2005] EWCA Civ 595;
[2006] QB 125 (CA); [2007] UKHL 21; [2008] 1 AC 1 (HL) .................................... 22-17
Downs v Chappell [1997] 1 WLR 426 (CA) ..................... 3-04, 3-110, 14-97, 15-15, 15-68,
15-74, 15-92, 16-53, 17-49, 17-60
Dowson and Mason Ltd v Potter [1986] 1 WLR 1419 (CA) .............................. 10-08, 22-20
Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158 (CA) ......................... 17-49, 17-57, 18-30
DRC Distributions Ltd v Ulva Ltd [2007] EWHC 1716 (QB) ....................................... 21-64
DRL Ltd v Wincanton Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 2896 (QB);
[2011] EWCA Civ 839 .............................................................................................. 4-263
Drummond v S & U Stores (1980) 258 EG 1293 .......................................................... 4-165
Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48; [2003] 2 AC 366 (HL) ............. 24-14
Duff & Co v Iron and Steel Fencing and Buildings Co (1891) 19 R 199
(Court of Session, 1st Div) .................................................. 4-28, 4-37, 4-38, 4-220, 14-78
Duffy v Ridley Properties Ltd [2008] 4 IR 282 (SC of Ireland)...................................... 17-37
Dunbar v A & B Painters [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 616; [1986] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 38 (CA) ...................................................................................... 3-103, 13-115, 16-06
Duncombe v Porter (1953) 90 CLR 295 (HC of Australia) ........................................... 4-220
Dunedin Independent plc v Welsh [2006] CSOH 174 ................................................... 10-07
Dunk v George Waller & Son [1970] 2 QB 163 (CA) ................................................... 18-43
Dunlop v Lambert (1839) 6 Cl & Fin 600, 7 ER 824 (HL) ........................................... 21-06
Dunn v Bucknall Bros [1902] 2 KB 614 (CA).............................................................. 14-169
Dunn v Disc Jockey Unlimited Co (1978) 87 DLR (3d) 408
(Ontario Small Claims Court).................................................................................... 19-08
Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council [2004] UKHL 36;
[2005] 1 AC 226 (HL) ...................................................................................... 5-59, 13-47
Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd v bmibaby Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 485;
[2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 68 (CA)..................................................13-40, 13-59, 13-61, 13-62,
13-65, 13-67, 18-18
E Bailey & Co Ltd v Balholm Securities Ltd [1973]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 404...................................................................13-106, 18-57, 18-77, 18-97
E Johnson & Co (Barbados) Ltd v NSR Ltd [1997] AC 400 (PC) ................................... 5-19
Eagle v Chambers [2003] EWCA Civ 1107 ................................................................. 15-130
Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Gale & Power (1955) 166 EG 37 ................................ 16-171
Earl of Malmesbury v Strutt & Parker (a partnership) [2007] EWHC 999 (QB) ........ 13-103,
13-110, 18-07, 18-09
Earl’s Terrace Properties Ltd v Nilsson Design Ltd
[2004] EWHC 136 (TCC) .................................. 6-15, 7-16, 7-25, 14-17, 14-142, 16-209,
18-101, 21-12, 21-37
Earle v Charalambous [2006] EWCA Civ 1090 ...........................19-29, 19-32, 19-33, 19-65
East v Maurer [1991] 1 WLR 461 (CA) ........................ 3-44, 3-45, 3-51, 6-55, 17-57, 18-85
East Ham Corp v Bernard Sunley & Sons [1966] AC 406 (HL) ........................ 4-158, 4-166,
16-04, 17-31
Eastgate Group Ltd v Lindsey Morden Group Inc [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 511;
[2001] EWCA Civ 1446; [2002] 1 WLR 642 (CA) ....... 9-12, 9-43, 16-176, 16-178, 24-13
Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc [2004] UKHL 35; [2005] 1 AC 503 (HL) ........... 5-59, 5-60
Ebbetts v Conquest [1895] 2 Ch 377 (CA); [1896] AC 490 (HL)............ 4-184, 4-186, 4-188
Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron and Coal Co v Tew [1935] 1 LJNCCA 284 .................................. 2-14
Edmund Handcock (1929) Ltd v Ernesto [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 467 (CA) ....................... 6-59
 Table of Cases xxxix

Edmunds v Lloyds Italico & l’Ancora Compagnia di Assicurazione

e Riassicurazione SpA [1986] 1 WLR 492 (CA) .......................................................... 7-44
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKSC 58;
[2012] 2 AC 22 (SC).................................................................................................... 5-59
Edwards v Society of Graphical and Allied Trades [1971] Ch 354 (CA) ........ 16-110, 16-120,
18-42
Ehmler v Hall [1993] 1 EGLR 137 (CA) ......................................................................... 6-33
Elafonissos Fishing and Shipping Co v Aigaion Insurance Co SA [2012]
EWHC 1512 (Comm)................................................................................................ 10-06
Elbinger AG v Armstrong (1874) LR 9 QB 473 .......................................... 6-14, 6-18, 14-81
Eldon Weiss Home Construction Ltd v Clark (1982) 39 OR (2d) 129 (Ont Co Ct) ...... 4-199
Electricity Supply Nominees Ltd v National Magazine Co Ltd
[1999] 1 EGLR 130 ................................................. 8-11, 8-13, 8-14, 19-29, 19-32, 19-54
Elena D’Amico, The see Koch Marine Inc v D’Amica Societa Di Navigazione ARL
Elf Enterprise Caledonia Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd [1997]
Scot CS 1 (Court of Session, OH) ................................................................... 14-77, 20-03
ELO Entertainments Ltd v Grand Metropolitan Retailing Ltd [1999]
1 All ER (Comm) 473 (CA) ............................................................................ 18-05, 18-06
Elpidoforos Shipping Corp v Furness Withy (Australia) Pty Ltd
(The Oinoussian Friendship) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 258 .............................. 16-218, 16-219
Emblem v Ingram Cactus Ltd, 5 November 1997 (CA) ............................................... 16-111
Empresa Cubana Importada de Alimentos (Alimport) v Iasmos Shipping Co SA
(The Good Friend) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 586 ............................................................ 17-32
Empresa Cubana Importada de Alimentos v Octavia Shipping Co SA
(The Kefalonia Wind) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 273 ................................. 1-66, 4-130, 16-244
Endeavour, The (1890) 6 Asp MC 511, 48 LTNS 636....................... 16-123, 16-151, 16-188
ENE Kos v Petroleo Brasilero SA [2009] EWHC 1843 (Comm).................................... 20-24
Engell v Fitch (1868) LR 3 QB 314; (1869) LR 4 QB 659.................................. 4-216, 4-268
English Churches Housing Group v Shine [2004]
EWCA Civ 434.........................................................................19-32, 19-33, 19-71, 19-74
Equitable Life Assurance Society v Ernst & Young [2003]
EWHC 112 (Comm).......................................................................... 14-137, 18-52, 18-54
Equitas Ltd v Walsham Bros & Co Ltd [2013] EWHC 3264 (Comm) ......... 7-08, 7-18, 7-26,
16-37
Erie County Natural Gas and Fuel Co Ltd v Samuel S Carroll
[1911] 1 AC 105 (PC) ............................................................................................... 16-79
Essentially Different Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc [2011] EWHC 475 (Comm) ........ 7-18, 7-20
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] 1 QB 801 (CA) ...................3-45, 3-96, 9-33, 9-38,
14-149, 16-99, 16-100, 16-105, 16-120,
17-40, 17-49, 17-61, 17-68, 18-85
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Niad Ltd [2001] EWHC 6 (Ch) .................................. 23-06, 23-20
Euro-Asian Oil SA v Abilo (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 3340 (Comm) .................. 4-117, 4-123,
4-127, 4-251
Eurocopy plc v Teesdale [1992] BCLC 1067 (CA)........................................................... 9-17
Evans v European Bank Ltd v Evans [2009] NSWCA 67; (2010)
240 CLR 432 (HC of Australia) .................................................................................. 7-21
Evans v Kosmar Villa Holidays plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1003; [2008]
1 WLR 297 (CA) ....................................................................................................... 19-80
Evans & Associates v Citibank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1004 ............................................... 7-29
Evans Marshall & Co Ltd v Bertola SA [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 17 (HL) ......................... 12-11
xl Table of Cases

Everett v Hogg, Robinson & Gardner Mountain (Insurance) [1973]

2 Lloyd’s Rep 217 (CA) ................................................................................ 3-103, 13-115
Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc
[2003] EWCA Civ 32 .................................................. 10-05, 22-10, 22-20, 22-23, 23-09,
23-11, 23-13, 23-14, 23-18, 23-22
Ezekiel v Kohali [2009] EWCA Civ 35.......................................................................... 4-264
Ezekiel v McDade (1994) 37 Con LR 140 (CA) ........................................ 3-50, 19-74, 19-76
F&G Cleaners Ltd v Saddington [2012] IRLR 892 (EAT) ................................ 15-44, 16-111
F Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade &
Industry [1975] AC 295 (HL) ...................................................................................... 7-02
Fal Oil Co Ltd v Petronas Trading Corp SDN BHD (The Devon) [2004]
EWCA Civ 822; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 282 (CA) ......................................................... 9-51
Famosa Shipping Co Ltd v Armada Bulk Carriers Ltd (The Fanis) [1994]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 633.....................................................................15-12, 15-19, 15-20, 16-76
Farley v Skinner (2000) 73 Con LR 70 (CA); [2001] UKHL 49;
[2002] 2 AC 732 (HL) ........................ 3-33, 3-52, 3-60, 3-75, 4-210, 17-64, 19-01, 19-06,
19-07, 19-15, 19-24, 19-25, 19-27, 19-48, 19-52,
19-53, 19-56, 19-58, 19-73, 19-77, 19-78
Farmer Giles Ltd v Wessex Water Authority [1990]
1 EGLR 177 (CA).............................................................................. 4-161, 4-237, 18-101
Farnworth Finance Facilities Ltd v Attryde [1970] 1 WLR 1053 (CA) ............................ 6-69
Fast Ferries One SA v Ferries Australia Pty Ltd [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 534 ............ 7-09, 7-44,
7-51
Feakins v Burstow [2005] EWHC 1931 (QB).............................................................. 13-117
Fearns v Anglo-Dutch Paint & Chemical Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 1708 (Ch).................. 18-21
Featherston v Wilkinson (1873) LR 8 Ex 122 ................................................................. 8-05
Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA [1977]
1 QB 324 (CA) ............................................................................................................ 1-62
Feltham v Freer Bouskell [2013] EWHC 1952 (Ch) ........................................... 13-04, 13-79
Fera v Village Plaza Inc 242 NW 2d 372 (1976) (SC of Michigan)................................ 18-18
Ferdinand Retzlaff, The [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 120 ......................................... 16-218, 16-219
Ferngold Plant Hire Ltd v Wenham, 13 March 2000 (CA) ................................. 4-133, 4-150
FG Minter Ltd v Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation (1980)
13 BLR 1 (CA) ............................................................................................... 4-156, 4-208
Fidler v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada [2006] 2 SCR 3 (SC of Canada) ...... 19-14, 19-38,
19-52, 23-35
Filobake Ltd v Rondo Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 563 ........................................................ 18-77
Financings Ltd v Baldock [1963] 2 QB 104 (CA) .......................................................... 13-44
Findlay v Howard (1919) 58 SCR 516 (SC of Canada) ................................................. 17-07
Fink v Fink (1946) 74 CLR 127 (HC of Australia)........................................................ 13-38
Finley v Connell Associates [2002] Lloyd’s Rep PN 62 ....................... 3-101, 13-128, 18-101
Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2016] EWHC 2163 (Comm) ........................... 7-18
Firle Investments Ltd v Datapoint International Ltd, 8 May 2000 ................................ 4-186
Firma C-Trade SA v Newcastle Protection and Indemnity Association
(London) Ltd (The Fanti) [1991] 2 AC 1 (HL) ............................................................ 9-49
First Interstate Bank of California v Cohen Arnold & Co [1996] PNLR 17,
(1996) 5 Bank LR 150 (CA) ...................................................................................... 18-54
Fisher v California Cake & Cookie Ltd [1997] IRLR 212 (EAT) .................................. 13-49
Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] AC 328 (HL)............................................................. 15-128, 24-14
Flame SA v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd [2013] EWHC 3153 (Comm);
[2014] QB 1080 .................................................................................... 5-29, 11-02, 13-24
 Table of Cases xli

Flanagan v Greenbanks Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1702 .................................................... 16-05

Fletcher v Tayleur (1855) 17 CB 21 ................................................................................ 6-39
Flureau v Thornhill (1776) 2 Wm Bl 778 ...................................................................... 4-268
FMC (Meat) Ltd v Fairfield Cold Stores Ltd [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 221 ........................... 7-47
Foaminol Laboratories Ltd v British Artid Plastics Ltd [1941] 2 All ER 393 ....... 4-37, 4-215,
4-238, 18-45, 18-46, 18-98
Folias, The see Services Europe Atlantique Sud v Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag SVEA
Food Corp of India v Carras (Hellas) Ltd (The Dione) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 577 ........... 1-67
Football League Ltd v Edge Ellison (a firm) [2006] EWHC 1462 (Ch) ........................ 13-110
Force India Formula One Team Ltd v Etihad Airways PJSC [2009]
EWHC 2768 (QB) .......................................................................................... 7-36, 13-119
Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd
[2012] EWHC 616 (Ch) ............................................... 10-08, 22-05, 22-12, 22-17, 22-23
Ford v White & Co [1964] 1 WLR 885 ........................................................ 3-19, 3-22, 3-51
Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v Butcher [1989] UKHL 5; [1989]
AC 852 (CA and HL) ................................................................................. 15-115, 15-116
Första AP-Fonden v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV [2013]
EWHC 3127 (Comm)................................................................................................ 13-01
Forster v Silvermere Golf & Equestrian Centre Ltd (1981) 42 P & CR 255 ....... 17-36, 21-32
Fortis Bank SA/NV v Indian Overseas Bank [2011] EWHC 538 (Comm) ....................... 7-32
Fortunity, The see Owners of M/C Four Hearts v Owners of M/V Fortunity
Fosca Services (UK) Ltd v Birkett [1996] IRLR 325 (EAT) ............................................ 13-45
Foster Wheeler Group Engineering Ltd v Chevron, 29 February 1996 .......................... 4-263
4 Eng Ltd v Harper [2008] EWHC 915 (Ch); [2009] Ch 91 .............2-28, 3-44, 3-45, 3-107,
3-111, 13-93, 13-110, 17-49,
17-50, 18-07, 18-49, 18-87
Fournier v Canadian National Rly [1927] AC 167 (PC).................................................. 1-29
Fox v British Airways plc [2013] EWCA Civ 972 ......................................................... 21-66
FPH Law v Brown [2016] EWHC 1681 (QB) ............................................................. 13-117
France v Gaudet (1871) LR 6 QB 199................................................................ 4-102, 4-111
Frank Mott & Co Ltd v Wm H Muller & Co (London) Ltd (1922)
13 Ll L Rep 492 ............................................................................................... 4-38, 4-117
Fraser v BN Furman (Productions) Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 898 (CA) ................................ 13-115
Freedhoff v Pomalift Industries Ltd (1971) 19 DLR (3d) 153 (Ontario CA).................. 16-94
Freeman v Niroomand (1996) 52 Con LR 116 (CA) ............................... 19-25, 19-48, 19-66
Freemont (Denbigh) Ltd v Knight Frank LLP [2014] EWHC 3347 (Ch) ..................... 14-122
French v Barclays Bank plc [1998] EWCA Civ 1092 ..................................................... 19-13
Fritz Thyssen, The see Owners of Mitera Marigo v Owners of Fritz Thyssen
Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co [1905] 1 KB 608 (CA) ......................................................... 4-84
Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham & Jones (a firm) [2006]
EWHC 2017 (Ch); [2008] EWCA Civ 84 .................................................. 3-51–3-52, 3-69
Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel Sau [2015]
EWCA Civ 1299; [2016] 1 WLR 2450 (CA); [2017] UKSC 43;
[2017] 1 WLR 2581 (SC) .............................. 5-28, 5-31, 5-51, 5-53, 15-62, 15-82, 15-91,
15-99, 15-101, 16-51, 16-58, 16-76, 17-01, 17-17
Funnell v Adams and Remer (a partnership) [2007] EWHC 2166 (QB) ........ 3-38, 3-51–3-52
G + K Ladenbau (UK) Ltd v Crawley & de Reya [1978] 1 WLR 266 ........... 3-53, 3-94, 7-19
GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs [2008] EWCA Civ 17; [2008] IRLR 317 (CA) ............... 5-60
Gaca v Pirelli General plc [2004] EWCA Civ 373; [2004]
1 WLR 2683 (CA) ............................................................16-120, 16-122, 16-128, 16-135
Gafford v Graham [1999] 3 EGLR 75 (CA) ............................................ 10-03, 22-16, 22-23
xlii Table of Cases

Gagner Pty Ltd v Canturi Corp Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 413
(CA of New South Wales) ......................................... 4-143, 4-168, 15-76, 16-216, 16-220
Gainsford v Carroll (1824) 2 B & C 624 ...................................................................... 16-95
Galbraith, Pembroke & Co Ltd v Regent Stevedoring Co Ltd (1946)
79 Ll L Rep 292 ........................................................................................... 4-251, 16-215
Galoo v Bright Grahame Murray [1994] 1 WLR 1360 (CA) ....14-137, 14-149, 16-64, 16-99
Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd
(The Ocean Victory) [2013] EWHC 2199 (Comm) ................................................... 16-15
Gardner v Marsh & Parsons (a firm) [1997] 1 WLR 489 (CA) .......3-22, 3-70, 4-30, 15-100,
16-143, 17-49
Gardner v Parker [2004] EWCA Civ 781 ...................................................................... 21-35
Garnac Grain Co Inc v HMF Faure & Fairclough Ltd
[1968] AC 1130 (HL) ........................................................................ 4-136, 15-45, 15-112
Garside v Black Horse Ltd [2010] EWHC 190 (QB) ................................ 4-63, 4-117, 4-216,
4-217, 6-69, 20-07
Gartell & Son v Yeovil Town Football & Athletic Club Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 62 ......... 2-07
Gascoine v Ian Sheridan & Co (1994) 5 Med LR 437................................................. 13-117
Gatoil International Inc v Tradax Petroleum Ltd (The Rio Sun) [1985]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 350........................................................................................................ 6-13
Gator Shipping Corp v Trans-Asiatic Oil Ltd (The Odenfeld) [1978]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 357...................................................................................................... 16-31
Gazelle, The (1844) 2 Wm Rob 279............................................................................ 15-105
GC Dobell & Co Ltd v Barger & Garratt [1931] 1 KB 219 (CA)........................ 4-91, 4-100,
16-08, 16-25
Gebrüder Metelmann GmbH & Co KG v NBR (London) Ltd [1984]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 614 (CA) ..............................................................5-25, 15-45, 15-95, 17-22
Geest plc v Lansiquot [2002] UKPC 48; [2002] 1 WLR 3111 (PC) ............................. 15-112
General Feeds Inc Panama v Slobodna Plovidba Yugoslavia [1999]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 688........................................................................................... 20-14, 20-21
Geogas SA v Trammo Gas Ltd (The Baleares) [1993]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 215 (CA) ................................................................6-23, 8-05, 8-08, 14-168
George Fischer (Great Britain) Ltd v Multi Construction Ltd
and Dexion Ltd [1995] 1 BCLC 260 (CA) ........................................................ 9-31, 21-37
George Fischer Holding Ltd v Multi Design Consultants Ltd (1998) 61 Con LR 85 ..... 4-167
George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 AC 803 (HL) ........ 4-67
George Stow & Co Ltd v Walter Lawrence Construction Ltd (1992)
40 Con LR 57.................................................... 4-161, 4-172, 4-195, 4-234, 4-257, 20-22
Georgiana, The v The Anglican (1872) 21 WR 280 ...................................................... 4-211
Gerber Garment Technology Ltd v Lectra Systems Ltd [1997] RPC 443 (CA) .............. 21-37
Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) ........ 16-55, 17-44,
17-46, 17-54
Geys v Société Générale, London Branch [2012] UKSC 23 ........................................... 16-34
Giedo van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd
[2010] EWHC 2373 (QB).................................... 2-03, 2-12, 2-37, 2-38, 2-44–2-48, 2-50,
2-53, 2-54, 2-56, 2-59, 2-63, 4-199, 12-03, 13-104,
19-08, 19-09, 19-45, 19-68, 19-70, 22-05, 22-09,
22-10, 22-11, 22-13, 22-16, 22-18, 22-22
Giedo van der Garde BV v Sauber Motorsport AG (No 2) [2015] VSC 109 ................. 12-03
Giles v Rhind [2002] EWCA Civ 1428; [2003] Ch 618 (CA) ........................................ 21-39
Giles v Thompson [1994] 1 AC 142 (HL) .......................................................... 6-08, 16-154
 Table of Cases xliii

GKN Centrax Gears Ltd v Matbro Ltd [1976] 2 Lloyd’s

Rep 555 (CA) ..................................................... 4-76, 4-235, 4-257, 14-14, 16-68, 18-45,
18-46, 19-52, 20-08
Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Cirrus Oil Services Ltd [2014] EWHC 87 (Comm) ............. 16-46
Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Transworld Oil Ltd [2010] EWHC 141 (Comm) ............... 15-15,
16-49, 16-158
Glencore Grain Ltd v Goldbeam Shipping Inc [2002] EWHC 27 (Comm) ...................... 6-27
Glenfinlas, The [1918] P 363........................................ 4-234, 6-57, 16-205, 16-224, 16-228
Globe Refining Co v Landa Cotton Oil Co 190 US 540 ................................................ 14-09
Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd v Flame SA [2016] EWHC 293 (Comm);
[2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 571 .......................................................................................... 11-09
Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd v Korea Line Corp (The Wren)
[2011] EWHC 1819 (Comm) ................................................................ 5-52, 15-15, 16-49
Godiva Mortgages Ltd v Khan [2012] EWHC 1757 (Ch) ............................................. 13-12
Godley v Perry [1960] 1 WLR 9...................................................................................... 4-84
Godwin v Francis (1870) LR 5 CP 295 ........................................................................... 9-04
Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council [2000] IRLR 70 (CA) ........................................ 5-60
Gold v Mincoff Science & Gold [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 423 .......................................... 2-34
Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory)
[2005] EWCA Civ 1190; [2006] 1 WLR 533 (CA); [2007] UKHL 12;
[2007] 2 AC 353 (HL) ................................... 1-36, 4-30, 5-31, 5-52, 12-08, 13-24, 13-42,
13-73, 13-77, 13-119, 13-124, 15-42, 15-64,
16-49, 16-109, 16-115, 16-204, 17-05, 17-08,
17-11, 17-17, 17-28, 17-29
Goldstein v Levy Gee (a firm) [2003] EWHC 1575 (Ch) ............................................... 13-69
Gordon v Turcan Connell 2009 SCLR 336 (Court of Session, OH) .............................. 21-08
Gorne v Scales [2006] EWCA Civ 311 .......................................................................... 10-08
Gover v Propertycare Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 286; [2006] 4 All ER 69 (CA) ................. 13-49
Graham v Ladeside of Kilbirnie Bowling Club 1994 SLT 1295
(Court of Session, OH) .............................................................................................. 19-09
Graham v Thomas Cook Group [2012] EWCA Civ 1355 ............................................. 19-13
Graham v Voigt (1989) 94 FLR 146 (SC of the Australian Capital Territory) ............... 4-261
Grange v Quinn [2013] EWCA Civ 24.......................................................................... 18-77
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 (PC) ..................................................... 4-84
Graves v Brouwer [2015] EWCA Civ 595 ..................................................................... 12-01
Gray v Owen [1910] 1 KB 622 ....................................................................................... 5-32
Great Elephant Corp v Trafigura Beheer BV [2013] EWCA Civ 905 ................ 15-12, 16-244
Great Future International Ltd v Sealand Housing Corp [2002]
EWHC 2454 (Ch); [2002] EWCA Civ 1183 ................... 4-79, 9-26, 16-115, 17-62, 18-30
Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE v Western Trading Ltd [2016]
EWCA Civ 1003...................................................................................... 1-27, 4-197, 9-47
Great Western Railway Co v Redmayne (1866)
1 LR CP 329................................................................................................................ 6-23
Grébert-Borgnis v J & W Nugent (1885)
15 QBD 85 (CA) ............................................................ 4-37, 4-117, 4-216, 14-78, 20-07
Greenglade Estates Ltd v Chana [2012] EWHC 1913 (Ch) .................................. 9-04, 17-26
Greenway v Johnson Matthey plc [2016] EWCA Civ 408;
[2016] 1 WLR 4487 (CA).......................................................................................... 19-79
Green-Wheeler Shoe Co v Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co
(1906) 130 Iowa 123 ............................................................................................... 16-225
xliv Table of Cases

Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2; [2005] 2 AC 176 (HL)........................... 12-01, 12-05, 13-73,
13-85, 13-86
Gregory v Shepherds (a firm) [2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 724;
[2000] PNLR 769 (CA) ....................................................................3-53, 3-94, 7-19, 7-57
Greymalkin Ltd v Copleys [2004] EWHC 1155 (Ch) ............................................. 3-51–3-52
Griffin v Pillet [1926] 1 KB 17 ...................................................................................... 19-81
Griffon Shipping LLC v Firodi Shipping Ltd [2013] EWHC 593 (Comm);
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 50 .............................................................................................. 7-35
Groom v Cocker [1939] 1 KB 194 (CA)............................................................. 18-38, 19-11
Grosvenor Hotel Co v Hamilton [1894] 2 QB 836 (CA) ................................................. 8-17
Ground Gilbey Ltd v Jardine Lloyd Thomson UK Ltd [2011]
EWHC 124 (Comm)........................................................................ 16-167, 16-240, 20-18
Guildford, The [1956] P 364 ....................................................................................... 14-182
Gul Bottlers (PVT) Ltd v Nichols plc [2014] EWHC 2173 (Comm) ..... 13-39, 13-57, 16-115,
18-07, 18-21,
18-48, 18-99
Gunasinghe v Henley Management College [2006] EWHC 346 (Admin)...................... 19-09
Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council [1981] Ch 448 (CA)...... 13-45
GUS Property Management Ltd v Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd
1982 SLT 533 (HL) .............................................. 16-195, 16-196, 16-197, 16-201, 21-08
GW Atkins Ltd v Scott (1996) 46 Con LR 14 (CA)....................................................... 19-19
H, Re [1996] AC 563 (HL) ........................................................................................... 12-01
H TV Ltd v ITV2 Ltd [2015] EWHC 2840 (Comm) ............................................ 2-27, 13-58
Habton Farms (an unlimited company)
v Nimmo [2003] EWCA Civ 68 .................. 5-03, 5-19, 9-04, 15-15, 15-69, 16-25, 16-28,
16-50, 16-57, 16-249, 17-26, 17-27, 17-29
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 ......................... 1-36, 2-43, 4-27, 4-116, 6-37, 6-51,
7-05, 14-01, 14-21, 14-23, 14-25,
14-43, 14-163, 16-85
Hall v Pimm see R & H Hall Ltd v WH Pim Junr & Co Ltd
Hall v Meyrick [1957] 2 QB 455 (CA) ........................................................................ 13-113
Hall v Ritchie [2008] BCSC 1452 ................................................................................... 6-68
Hall v Ross (1813) 1 Dow 201 (HL) ............................................................................. 18-18
Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576;
[2004] 1 WLR 3002 (CA)........................................................................................ 16-229
Hamilton v Open Window Bakery Ltd [2004] 1 SCR 303 (SC of Canada) ................... 13-43
Hamilton Jones v David & Snape (a firm) [2003] EWHC 3147 (Ch);
[2004] 1 WLR 924 ..................................................... 16-126, 19-07, 19-11, 19-45, 19-56
Hammersmatch Properties (Welwyn) Ltd v Saint-Gobain Ceramics &
Plastics Ltd [2013] EWHC 1161 (TCC) .................................................................... 4-185
Hammond & Co v Bussey (1887) 20 QBD 79 (CA)........... 4-57, 14-24, 20-08, 20-28, 20-29
Hancock v Tucker [1999] Lloyd’s Rep PN 814 ........................................................... 14-150
Hanif v Middleweeks (a firm) [2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 920 (CA) ...................... 13-98, 13-117
Hanjin Shenzhen, The [2014] EWHC 210 (Admlty) .......................................... 6-33, 16-216
Harbutt’s ‘Plasticine’ Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd [1970]
1 QB 447 (CA) .........................................................................4-78, 4-148, 4-161, 15-105
Hardy v Wamsley-Lewis (1967) 203 EG 1039 ....................................................... 3-44, 3-51
Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd v Wilkins Kennedy [2016]
EWHC 3233 (TCC)........................................................................................ 7-49, 13-110
Harling v Eddy [1951] 2 KB 739 (CA) ............................................................... 15-91, 15-92
 Table of Cases xlv

Harlow & Jones Ltd v Panex (International) Ltd [1967]

2 Lloyd’s Rep 509.......................................................................5-36, 5-47, 15-48, 16-156
Harmonides, The [1903] P 1 ......................................................................................... 4-248
Harris v American Investment Co (1975) 523 F 2d 220 (US Court
of Appeals 8th Circuit) .............................................................................................. 16-54
Harris v Wyre Forest DC [1990] 1 AC 831 (HL) .......................................................... 13-20
Harrison v Bloom Camillin (a firm) (No 2) [2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 89 ....................... 13-107
Harrison v Shepherd Homes [2011] EWHC 1811 (TCC); [2012]
EWCA Civ 904............................................................................................... 4-171, 4-210
Hartle v Laceys [1999] Lloyd’s Rep PN 315 (CA) ..........................7-16, 13-04, 13-95, 19-11
Hassel, The [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 139............................................................ 16-215, 16-219
Hatswell v Goldbergs (a firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 2084............................................... 13-107
Haugesund Kommune v Depfa ACS Bank [2010] EWHC 227 (Comm);
[2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323; [2010] EWCA Civ 579;
[2012] QB 549 (CA) .......................................... 14-119, 14-131, 14-159, 14-164, 14-172,
15-125, 16-170, 16-176, 16-180, 16-181
Havenledge Ltd v Graeme John & Partners [2001] PNLR 17 (CA)............... 3-46, 3-93, 7-19
Haversham Grange, The [1905] P 307 (CA) ............................................................... 16-224
Haviland v Long [1952] 2 QB 80 (CA) ................................................. 4-187, 4-189, 16-145
Hawkins v Woodhall [2008] EWCA Civ 932 .............................................. 8-10, 8-12, 18-17
Hawksford Trustees Jersey Ltd v Halliwells LLP [2015] EWHC 2996 (Ch) ..... 16-174, 20-23
Hayden v Hayden [1992] 1 WLR 986 (CA) ................................................................ 16-120
Hayes v James and Charles Dodd (a firm) [1990]
2 All ER 815 (CA) ............................................... 3-04, 3-17, 3-22, 3-31, 3-37, 3-44, 3-46,
3-52, 3-85, 17-49, 17-57, 19-06, 19-52, 19-74
Haysman v Mrs Rogers Films Ltd [2008]
EWHC 2494 (QB) ....................................................................2-34, 15-105, 19-25, 19-74
Heaton v Axa Equity & Law Life Assurance Society plc [2002]
UKHL 15; [2002] 2 AC 329 (HL) ............................................................................. 24-16
Heaven & Kesterton Ltd v Etablissements Francois Albiac &
Compagnie [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 316 ..................................................................... 16-107
Hebridean Coast, The see Owners of The Lord Citrine v Owners
of The Hebridean Coast
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 (HL) ................ 3-01, 14-85
Heil v Rankin [2000] PIQR Q16 (CA) .......................................................................... 13-74
Heindal A/S v Questier (1949) 82 Ll L Rep 452 .............................................................. 8-03
Helmsley Acceptances Ltd v Lambert Smith Hampton
[2010] EWCA Civ 356 ...................................................................... 16-194, 21-04, 21-33
Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation
Trust [2016] EWHC 3275 (QB) .............................................................................. 16-102
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145 (HL) ................................ 3-13, 14-85
Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd [1969] 2 AC 31 (HL) ......... 4-66, 20-08
Herbert Clayton and Jack Waller Ltd v Oliver [1930] AC 209 (HL) ............................. 18-41
Heron II, The see C Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos
Herrmann v Withers LLP [2012] EWHC 1492 (Ch) ........... 3-67, 3-79, 15-72, 15-76, 16-44,
16-171, 17-65, 19-28, 20-23
Heskell v Continental Express Ltd [1950] 1 All ER 1033....................... 4-105, 4-116, 4-117,
6-23, 16-04
Hewitt v Rowlands (1924) 93 LJKB 1080 (CA) ........................................ 8-20, 19-29, 19-32
Heywood v Wellers [1976] QB 446 (CA) ...................................................................... 19-11
xlvi Table of Cases

Hickman v Blake Lapthorn [2005] EWHC 2714 (QB); [2006] PNLR 20......... 13-117, 17-26
Hickman v Haynes (1875) LR 10 CP 598 ....................................................................... 5-19
Hicks v Russell Jones & Walker [2007] EWHC 940 (Ch);
[2008] EWCA Civ 340 .............................................................................................. 13-94
HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank
[2003] UKHL 6 ....................................................................................................... 14-179
HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v JLT Risk Solutions Ltd
[2007] EWCA Civ 710; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 278 (CA) .......................................... 16-187
HIH Insurance Ltd, Re [2016] NSWSC 482.................................................................. 13-20
Hi-Lite Electrical Ltd v Wolseley UK Ltd [2011] EWHC 1379 (TCC) ........................... 16-16
Hill v Governing Body of Great Tey Primary School [2013] ICR 691 (EAT) ................. 13-49
Hill & Sons v Edwin Showell & Sons Ltd (1918) 87 LJKB 1106 (HL)............................ 5-45
Hilton International Hotels (UK) Ltd v Faraji [1994] ICR 249 (EAT) ......................... 16-140
Hinde v Liddell (1875) LR 10 QB 265 ............................................................... 4-117, 4-133
Hipkins v Jack Cotton Partnership [1989] 2 EGLR 157.............................. 3-74, 6-07, 17-66
Hirtenstein v Hill Dickinson LLP [2014]
EWHC 2711 (Comm).................................... 4-32, 4-33, 4-41, 4-145, 4-164, 4-166, 6-63,
13-02, 13-64, 13-116, 15-73, 16-49,
17-01, 17-16, 17-29, 17-31
HIT Finance Ltd v Lewis & Tucker Ltd [1993] 2 EGLR 231 .......................................... 7-28
HL Motorworks (Willesden) v Alwahbi [1977] RTR 276 (CA)....................................... 6-08
HMS London [1914] P 72........................................................................................... 16-245
Hoad v Scone Motors Pty Ltd [1977] 1 NSWLR 88 (NSW CA) ................................. 15-109
Hoadley v Edwards [2001] PNLR 964 ...................................................... 3-58, 19-74, 19-76
Hobbs v London and South Western Railway Co (1875)
LR 10 QB 111 ....................................................................................... 2-04, 19-74, 19-80
Hobbs v Marlowe [1978] AC 16 (HL) ........................................................................ 16-128
Hodgson v Trapp [1989] AC 807 (HL) .............................................................. 7-57, 16-138
Hoffberger v Ascot International Bloodstock Bureau Ltd (1976)
120 Sol Jo 130 (CA) .................................................................................................. 15-94
Hoffman v Sofaer [1982] 1 WLR 1350 ........................................................................... 1-69
Hogan v Bentinck Collieries [1949] 1 All ER 588 (HL)................................................. 14-88
HOK Sport Ltd v Aintree Racecourse Co Ltd [2002] EWHC 3094 (TCC).................. 14-142
Holden Ltd v Bostock & Co Ltd (1902) 50 WR 323 (CA) ................................. 4-257, 4-258
Holder v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [2002] EWHC 856 (TCC) ......... 3-56–3-58, 3-82, 6-07
Hollebone v Midhurst and Fernhurst Builders Ltd [1968]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 38........................................................................................... 4-145, 15-105
Home & Office Fire Extinguishers Ltd, Re [2012] EWHC 917 (Ch) ............................... 2-56
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 (HL) ........................................ 16-247
Homsy v Murphy (1997) 73 P & CR 26 (CA) .............................................................. 4-268
Honda Canada Inc v Keays [2008] 2 SCR 362 (SC of Canada)................. 5-61, 19-38, 23-35
Hooberman v Salter Rex [1985] 1 EGLR 144 ............................................... 3-57, 3-83, 6-07
Hood v Shaw (1960) 200 EG 777 ................................................................................... 3-58
Hooks Smelting Co v Planters’ Compress Co (1904) 79 SW 1052
(SC of Arkansas)........................................................................................... 14-46, 14-174
Hooper v Oates [2013] EWCA Civ 91; [2014]
Ch 287 (CA) ..................................................................... 4-31, 5-09, 15-84, 17-17, 17-29
Hopkins v Norcross [1993] 1 All ER 565 ................................................................... 16-131
Horace Holman Group Ltd v Sherwood International Group Ltd
[2001] All ER (D) 83 (Nov) ....................................................................... 2-25, 2-27, 2-29
Horne v Midland Railway Co (1873) LR 8 CP 131 ............. 6-14, 6-23, 14-41, 14-43, 14-78
 Table of Cases xlvii

Horsfall v Haywards [1999] 1 FLR 1182 (CA) ........................................................... 16-171

Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750 (HL)........................... 13-73
Houndsditch Warehouse Co Ltd v Waltex Ltd [1944] KB 579 ......................... 15-75, 16-108
Hounslow London Borough Council v Twickenham Garden
Developments [1971] Ch 413 ......................................................................... 16-33, 16-34
Household Machines Ltd v Cosmos Exporters Ltd [1947] KB 217 .......... 4-37, 4-117, 4-216,
20-07, 20-10
Housing Loan Corp plc v William H Brown Ltd [1999] Lloyd’s Rep PN 185 (CA)....... 13-14
Houweling Nurseries Ltd v Fisons Western Corp (1988) 49 DLR (4th) 205
(British Columbia CA) ............................................................................................... 18-32
Howard v Horne & Sons [1990] 1 EGLR 272 ....................................................... 3-82–3-84
Howe v Teefy (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 301 (Federal Court of Australia) ................ 18-55, 18-77
Howkins & Harrison (a firm) v Tyler [2001] PNLR 27 (CA) ........................................ 24-13
HSBC Rail (UK) Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1437 ....... 16-144
HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd (2004) 217
CLR 640 (HC of Australia) ....................................................................................... 17-57
Hughes v Pendragon Sabre Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 18;
[2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 311 (CA)....................................................................... 4-248, 18-20
Hughes v Quentin (1838) 8 Car & P 703...................................................................... 4-211
Hulbert v Avens [2003] EWHC 76 (Ch)........................................................................ 16-75
Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125 (HC of Australia) .............................. 7-05, 7-06
Hunt v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd [2013] EWHC 681 (TCC) ..................... 4-210, 6-63, 19-76
Hunt v Severs [1994] 2 AC 350 (HL) ............................................... 16-119, 16-120, 16-122,
16-123, 16-125, 16-139
Hurstwood Developments Ltd v Motor & General & Andersley & Co
Insurance Services Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1785......................................................... 24-13
Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd [1988] 1 AC 514 (HL) ........ 16-120, 16-123, 16-135
Hussey v Eels [1990] 2 QB 227 (CA) ..............................................3-36, 3-78, 3-98, 15-100,
16-70, 16-90, 16-105
Hut Group Ltd v Nobahar-Cookson [2014] EWHC 3842 (QB);
[2016] EWCA Civ 128 .................................................................9-16, 9-18, 9-29, 14-165
Hutchinson v Harris (1978) 10 BLR 19 (CA)............ 4-263, 7-14, 8-11, 19-75, 19-77, 20-24
Hydraulic Engineering Ltd v McHaffie, Goslett & Co (1878) 4 QBD 670 (CA) ............. 6-42
Hydrocarbons Great Britain Ltd v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd
(1991) 53 BLR 84 (CA) ............................................................................................. 20-10
Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Dartbrook Coal (Sales) Pty Ltd
(2006) 236 ALR 115 (Federal Ct of Australia) ............................................................ 5-31
IBM Canada Ltd v Waterman [2013] 3 SCR 985 (SC of Canada) ............................... 16-131
Iggleden v Fairview New Homes (Shooters Hill) Ltd [2007]
EWHC 1573 (TCC)........................................................................... 6-07, 16-112, 16-114
IJ Manufacturing v Riel [2001] BCSC 32 (British Columbia SC)................................... 4-199
Ikala, The see Owners of SS Strathfillan v Owners of SS Ikala
IMI Cornelius (UK) Ltd v Bloor (1991) 57 BLR 108 ...................................... 16-196, 16-197
Inchbald v Western Neilgherry Coffee, Tea & Cinchona
Plantation Co Ltd (1864) 17 CB (NS) 733............................................................... 13-109
Indata Equipment Supplies Ltd (t/a Autofleet) v ACL Ltd [1998] 1 BCLC 412 (CA)..... 10-08
Industria Azucarera Nacional SA v Empresa Exportadora de Azucar
(Cubazucar), 29 February 1980; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 171 (CA) ..................... 4-27, 16-95
Infiniteland Ltd v Artisan Contracting Ltd [2004] EWHC 955 (Ch);
[2005] EWCA Civ 758; [2006] 1 BCLC 632 (CA)......... 1-43, 9-12, 9-16, 9-17, 9-34, 9-43
Insurance Corp of the Channel Islands Ltd v McHugh [1997] Lloyd’s Rep IR 94 ........... 9-49
xlviii Table of Cases

Intercity Telecom Ltd v Solanki [2015] 2 Costs LR 315 ................................................ 18-21

Interallianz Finanz AG v Independent Insurance Co Ltd
[1997] EG 91 (CS) ........................................................................................ 4-101, 16-190
International Factors v Rodriguez [1979] QB 351 (CA) .............................................. 16-176
International Minerals and Chemical Corp v Karl O Helm
AG [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81 ........................................................................................ 7-29
Interoffice Telephones Ltd v Robert Freeman Co Ltd [1958]
1 QB 190 (CA) ...................................................................................... 1-31, 5-40, 13-121
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce v Leidig [2000]
Lloyd’s Rep 144 (CA) ............................................. 14-137, 14-149, 16-99, 16-224, 20-23
Intrum Justitia BV v Legal and Trade Financial Services Ltd
[2009] 4 IR 417 (Irish HC) ...............................................................9-25, 9-32, 9-43, 9-45
Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society
[1998] 1 WLR 896 (HL).............................................................................................. 1-55
Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency v Compensation
Appeal Tribunal [1966] 1 WLR 480 (CA) ................................................................. 15-39
Ironield v Eastern Gas Board [1964] 1 All ER 544 ...................................................... 16-128
IRT Oil and Gas Ltd v Fiber Optic Systems Technology (Canada)
Inc [2009] EWHC 3041 (QB) .................................................................................... 18-18
Isaac Naylor & Sons Ltd v New Zealand Co-operative Wool Marketing
Association Ltd [1981] 1 NZLR 361 (NZ CA)............................................................ 7-29
Isaacs & Sons v Salbstein [1916] 2 KB 139 (CA) .......................................................... 24-07
Isabella Shipowner SA v Shagang Shipping Co Ltd (The Aquafaith)
[2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm) .............................................................. 16-31, 16-34, 16-36
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Ierax Shipping Co of Panama
(The Forum Craftsman) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81 .............................. 14-73, 14-78, 16-244
Italian State Railways v Owners of SS Minnehaha (1921)
6 Ll L Rep 12 (CA) ......................................................................................... 4-161, 4-179
J Leavey & Co Ltd v George H Hirst & Co Ltd [1944] KB 24 (CA) .................... 4-38, 4-220
J Sainsbury Plc v Broadway Malyan (1998) 61 Con LR 31 ........................................... 13-75
Jack L Israel Ltd v Ocean Dynamic Lines SA (The Ocean Dynamic)
[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 88 .......................................................................................... 16-160
Jackson v Chrysler Acceptances Ltd [1978] RTR 474 (CA)........................................... 4-210
Jackson v Hayes Candy & Co Ltd [1938] 4 All ER 353.............................................. 16-111
Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468 (CA) .............2-61, 2-64, 19-08, 21-29
Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5; [2015] 2 All ER 805 (SC) ........................ 15-128, 15-131
Jackson v Royal Bank of Scotland [2000] CLC 1457 (CA);
[2005] UKHL 3; [2005] 1 WLR 377 (HL) ...............................7-49, 10-07, 13-101, 14-14,
14-25, 14-32, 16-243, 18-49,
18-58, 18-92, 18-95
Jackson v Watson & Sons [1909] 2 KB 193 (CA) ........................................................... 4-84
Jacob & Youngs v Kent (1921) 230 NY 239 (NYCA)............................. 4-159, 19-19, 19-26
Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269 (CA) ...................................1-19, 10-03, 22-04, 22-09,
22-21, 22-23
Jamal v Moolla Dawood Sons & Co [1916] 1 AC 175 (PC) .............................. 15-15, 16-57
James v Hutton and J Cook & Sons Ltd [1950] 1 KB 9 (CA)............................. 4-189, 4-199
James Finlay & Co Ltd v NV Kwik Hoo Tong Handel Maatschappij
[1929] 1 KB 400 (CA) ............................................................4-116, 4-126, 4-218, 16-172
James W Cook & Co (Wivenhoe) Ltd v Tipper [1990] IRLR 386 (CA) ........................ 13-50
Jameson v Central Electricity Generating Board [2000]
1 AC 455 (HL) .................................................................................... 24-09, 24-15, 24-17
 Table of Cases xlix

Janciuk v Winerite Ltd [1998] IRLR 63 (EAT) .............................................................. 13-45

Janiak v Ippolito [1985] 1 SCR 146 (SC of Canada) ..................................................... 13-73
Janred Properties Ltd v Ente Nazionale Italiano per il Turismo [1989]
2 All ER 444 (CA) ..................................................................................................... 17-26
Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233 (CA) ..................... 2-61, 2-64, 19-08, 19-61, 19-71
Jarvis v T Richards & Co (1980) 124 Sol Jo 793 ..........................4-243, 7-55, 16-63, 16-91,
17-36, 19-28
Jaura v Ahmed [2002] EWCA Civ 210 .................................................................. 7-48, 7-49
JEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks Bloom & Co [1983] 1 All ER 582 (CA) ............................. 13-14
Jebsen v East and West India Dock Co (1875) LR 10 CP 300 ............................ 16-77, 16-85
Jenmain Builders v Steed & Steed [2000] Lloyd’s
Rep PN 549 (CA) .....................................................................3-93, 3-102, 18-05, 18-101
Jervis v Harris [1996] Ch 195 (CA)............................................................................... 16-21
Jet2.com Ltd v SC Compania Nationala de Transporturi Aeriene Romane
Tarom SA [2012] EWHC 2752 (QB); [2014] EWCA Civ 87 .......................... 13-05, 13-29
Jewelowski v Propp [1944] KB 510.................................................................... 15-88, 16-70
JF Finnigan Ltd v Sheffield City Council (1988) 43 BLR 124 .......................................... 2-33
JL Lyon & Co Ltd v Fuchs [1920] 2 Ll L Rep 333 ........................................................ 4-117
JN Dairies Ltd v Johal Dairies Ltd [2010] EWHC 1689 (Ch)........................................ 10-08
Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794 (HL) ..................................... 13-78, 16-230
John D Wood & Co (Residential and Agricultural) v Knatchbull [2004] 1 EGLR 33 ...... 3-94
John F Hunt Demolition Ltd v ASME Engineering Ltd [2007] EWHC
1507 (TCC); [2008] 1 All ER 180 .................................................................. 20-17, 20-22
John Grimes Partnership Ltd v Gubbins [2013] EWCA Civ 37 .........3-53, 3-94, 7-19, 14-04,
14-15, 14-171, 14-174,
16-208, 16-210
John Harris Partnership v Groveworld Ltd (1999) 75 Con LR 7.......... 16-142, 21-12, 21-13,
21-28, 21-32
Johnson v Agnew [1980] 1 AC 367 (HL) .............................. 1-16, 1-37, 5-18, 16-24, 17-11,
17-24, 17-26, 17-37, 22-09
Johnson v Bingley Dyson & Finney (a firm) [1997] PNLR 392 ....................................... 3-94
Johnson v Fourie [2011] EWHC 1062 (QB).................................................................. 19-81
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 (HL) ................................... 19-03, 19-09, 21-35
Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351 (HC of Australia)..................4-91, 4-143, 7-55, 17-16
Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] UKHL 13; [2003]
1 AC 518 (HL) ...........................................................................5-59, 19-39, 19-52, 23-30
Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd v State Trading Corp of India Ltd
[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 427 ............................................................................... 13-40, 17-26
Johnston v Great Western Railway Co [1904] 2 KB 250 (CA) ...................................... 12-08
Joiner v George [2002] EWCA Civ 1160 ........................................................................ 9-16
Joliffe v Charles Coleman & Co (1971) 219 EG 1608 .................................................. 16-44
Jones v Herxheimer [1950] 2 QB 106 (CA)............................................. 4-165, 4-187, 4-193
Jones v Gardiner [1902] 1 Ch 191 .................................................................................. 6-39
Jones v IOS (RUK) Ltd [2010] EWHC 1743 (Ch);
[2012] EWHC 348 (Ch) .............................................. 10-09, 13-32, 13-65, 13-66, 13-91,
13-110, 22-05, 22-23
Jones v Just (1868) LR 3 QB 197 ...................................................4-86, 4-224, 15-67, 16-52
Jones v Lingfield Leisure plc [1999] CLY 2134 (CA) ........................................ 13-47, 15-137
Jones v Port of London Authority [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 489 ............................... 6-53, 17-30
Jones v Stroud District Council [1986] 1 WLR 1141 (CA) ........4-155, 4-251, 16-84, 16-123,
16-124, 16-141
l Table of Cases

Jordan v Norfolk County Council [1994] 4 All ER 218 ................................................ 4-189

Joseph v National Magazine Co Ltd [1959] Ch 14 ....................................................... 18-41
Jostens Canada Ltd v Gibsons Studios Ltd 1998 CanLII 3952
(British Columbia SC)................................................................................................ 10-09
Joyce v Bowman Law Ltd [2010] EWHC 251 (Ch).........................3-05, 3-93, 3-101, 4-237,
13-97, 13-114, 15-74, 15-76,
16-81, 17-49, 17-64, 18-101
Joyner v Weeks [1891] 2 QB 31 (CA) ........................................................................... 4-186
JP Morgan Chase Bank v Springwell Navigation Corp [2006] EWCA Civ 161 ............. 18-75
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2013] EWHC 867 (Comm) ......................................... 7-08, 7-49
Julien Praet et Compagnie SA v HG Poland Ltd [1962]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 566....................................................................................... 13-126, 13-127
Kaines (UK) Ltd v Osterreichische Warenhandelsgesellschaft
Austrowaren GmbH [1993] Lloyd’s Rep 1 (CA) ............................... 15-45, 15-112, 16-49,
17-22, 17-28, 17-30
Karas v Rowlett [1944] SCR 1 (SC of Canada) .................................................... 5-44, 16-82
Karim v Wemyss [2016] EWCA Civ 27 ...............................................2-29, 2-30, 9-08, 9-18,
9-20, 9-21, 9-33
Kasler & Cohen v Slavouski [1928] 1 KB 78 ............................................ 4-68, 20-08, 20-29
Kaye Steam Navigation Co Ltd v W & R Barnett Ltd (1932) 48 TLR 440 ................... 13-40
Kelleher v O’Connor [2010] IEHC 313 (Irish HC)..............................3-05, 3-18, 3-39, 3-51,
3-67, 17-44, 17-69
Kemp v Intasun Holidays Ltd [1987] 2 FTLR 234, (1988) 6 Tr L 161 (CA) ................. 19-58
Kemp v Sober (1851) 61 ER 200............................................................. 10-04, 19-31, 22-23
Kennedy v KB Van Emden & Co [1997] 2 EGLR 137 (CA) ................... 1-25, 16-203, 17-05,
17-06, 17-36
Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499 (CA) ........................................................................... 23-30
Kenny & Good Pty Ltd v MGICA (1992) Ltd (1999) 163 ALR 611
(HC of Australia)..................................................................................................... 14-148
Kerr v Danier Leather Inc (2004) CanLII 8186 (Ontario SC); (2005)
77 OR (3d) 321 (Ontario CA); [2007] 3 SCR 331 (SC of Canada)........ 9-19, 16-54, 16-61
Kerr Steamship Co Inc v Radio Corp of America (1927)
245 NY 284 (NYCA) ................................................................................... 14-35, 14-168
Keydon Estate Ltd v Eversheds LLP [2005] EWHC 972 (Ch) ........3-92, 3-93, 17-66, 18-100
Kiddle v Lovett (1885) 16 QBD 605 ............................................................................. 20-21
Kimber v William Willett Ltd [1947] KB 570 (CA) ....................................................... 19-80
King v Victor Parsons Ltd [1972] 1 WLR 801 (CA) ........................................................ 4-87
King v Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [1896] AC 250 (PC) ............................................... 16-137
Kings Castle Church v Okukusie, 13 June 2012 (EAT) ................................................. 13-50
Kingsway, The [1918] P 344 (CA) ...............................................4-197, 4-208, 13-73, 13-78,
16-205, 16-228
Kirkton Investments Ltd v VMH LLP [2011] CSOH 200 .......................... 3-53, 3-94, 3-101,
7-16, 16-209, 18-101
Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563 (CA)................................. 13-117
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham City Council [1997] QB 380 (CA) ........................ 7-15
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council
[1994] 4 All ER 972 .................................................................................................... 7-15
Kliger v Sadwick [1947] 1 All ER 840........................................................................... 4-224
Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9; [2016] AC 908 (SC) .................. 13-74, 13-121
Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 All ER 851 (CA)................................................................. 15-43
 Table of Cases li

Koch Marine Inc v D’Amica Societa Di Navigazione ARL (The Elena D’Amico)
[1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 75 .................................................... 4-25, 5-27, 5-28, 15-90, 16-49,
16-50, 16-57, 16-85
Komercni Banka AS v Stone and Rolls Ltd [2002] EWHC 2263 (Comm);
[2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 383 ............................................................................... 16-70, 16-73
Kopec v Pyret (1983) 146 DLR (3d) 242 (Saskatchewan QB);
(1987) 36 DLR (4th) 1 (Saskatchewan CA) ........................................... 6-39, 16-22, 17-37
Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119 (CA) ........ 14-32, 18-38, 19-13
Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary
[2002] 2 AC 122 (HL) ......................................................................... 23-27, 23-29, 23-32
Kurt A Becher GmbH & Co KG v Roplak Enterprises SA
(The World Navigator) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 23 (CA) .................................... 13-40, 13-41
Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (No 6) [2002]
2 AC 883 (HL) ................................................................................ 15-36, 15-105, 15-111
Kuwait Airways Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co [2000] Lloyd’s Rep IR 678 ...................... 7-47
Kwei Tek Chao v British Traders and Shippers
[1954] 2 QB 459 .................................. 4-21, 4-51, 4-59, 4-89, 4-222, 4-225–4-227, 6-09,
6-11, 6-13, 6-20, 14-68, 17-03, 17-28
L Albert & Son v Armstrong Rubber (1949) 178 F 2d 182, 2d Cir ............................... 18-69
Lagden v O’Connor [2003] UKHL 64; [2004]
1 AC 1067 (HL) ............................................... 4-142, 4-210, 4-254, 6-08, 15-92, 15-104,
15-105, 15-106, 16-87, 16-92, 16-154
Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su [2014] EWHC 3611 (Comm);
[2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 216 ........................................................................ 5-07, 5-19, 17-26
Landeau v Marchbank [1949] 2 All ER 172 ................................................................. 4-188
Lane v O’Brien Homes Ltd [2004] EWHC 303 (QB) ....... 10-03, 22-02, 22-04, 22-06, 23-17
Langford v Hebron [2001] EWCA Civ 361................................................................. 13-101
Langham Estate Management Ltd v Hardy [2008] 3 EGLR 125 ................. 8-15, 8-18, 19-33
Lansat Shipping Co Ltd v Glencore Grain BV [2009] EWCA Civ 855 ............................ 6-27
Larios v Bonany y Gurety (1873) LR 5 PC 346 (PC) ..................................................... 18-38
Larksworth Investments Ltd v Temple House Ltd [1999] BLR 297 (CA) ............... 8-13, 8-14
Latimer v Carney [2006] EWCA Civ 1417....................... 4-165, 4-170, 4-184, 4-187, 4-194
Latvian Shipping Co v Russian People’s Insurance Co (ROSNO)
Open Ended Joint Stock Co [2012] EWHC 1412 (Comm) ........................................ 18-28
Lavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd [1967]
1 QB 278 (CA) ..................................................... 1-31, 5-34, 10-10, 13-02, 13-29, 13-34,
13-36, 13-37, 13-54, 13-61, 13-67,
13-72, 13-121, 16-76
Law Debenture Trust Corp plc v Elektrim SA [2010]
EWCA Civ 1142................................................................................ 13-83, 13-104, 18-52
Law Society v Sephton & Co [2006] UKHL 22; [2006] 2 AC 543 (HL) ............ 20-02, 20-09
Lazenby Garages Ltd v Wright [1976] 1 WLR 459 (CA)................................................. 5-42
Le Blanche v London and North Western Railway Co (1876) 1 CPD 286 ...................... 2-04
Leahy v Rawson [2004] 3 IR 1 (Irish HC).......................................................... 4-211, 16-92
Leche Pascual SA v Collin & Hobson plc [2004] EWCA Civ 700 ...................... 13-74, 18-34
Lee Ting Yeung v Yeung Chung On [2008] HKDC 254 .................................................. 6-33
Leeds Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd v Slack [1924] AC 851 (HL) .......................... 1-15
Legal & General Mortgage Services Ltd v HPC Professional Services
[1997] PNLR 567 ........................................................................................... 7-14, 16-191
Lenderink-Woods v Zurich Assurance Ltd [2016] EWHC 3287 (Ch).............................. 3-88
lii Table of Cases

Leofelis SA v Lonsdale Sports Ltd [2012] EWHC 485 (Ch); [2012]

EWCA Civ 1366.................................................................................. 13-26, 13-41, 13-72
Leonard v Strathclyde Buses Ltd [1998] IRLR 693 (Court of Session) .......................... 13-47
Leppard v Excess Insurance Co Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 512 (CA) ....................................... 4-186
Lesters Leather & Skin Co Ltd v Home and Overseas Brokers Ltd
(1948) 82 Ll L Rep 202 (CA) .......................................................4-30, 4-37, 4-133, 4-220
Levicom International Holdings BV v Linklaters (a firm) [2010]
EWCA Civ 494.......................................................................................................... 13-12
Levison v Farin [1978] 2 All ER 1129 ........................................................................... 16-63
Levy v Lewis, 26 November 1993 (CA) ...................................................................... 15-112
Leyland Shipping Co Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd
[1918] AC 350 (HL) ................................................................................................ 16-226
Lexmead (Basingstoke) Ltd v Lewis [1982] AC 225 (HL) .................................... 4-84, 16-09
Liesbosch, The see Owners of Dredger Liesbosch v Owners of SS Edison
Liffen v Watson [1940] 1 KB 556 (CA) ....................................................................... 16-123
Lighthouse Carwood Ltd v Luckett [2007] EWHC 2866 (QB) ..................................... 10-07
Lim Poh Choo v Camden Islington Area Health Authority [1980]
AC 174 (HL) .................................................................................................... 7-57, 19-57
Linden Gardens Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd (1992)
30 Con LR 1 (CA); [1994] 1 AC 85 (HL) .............. 4-203, 15-33, 16-122, 16-127, 16-141,
16-195–16-198, 21-08, 21-10, 21-14,
21-20–21-22, 21-26, 21-45,
21-46, 21-50, 21-58
Linden Homes South East Ltd v LBH Wembley Ltd [2002]
EWHC 536 (TCC); (2003) 87 Con LR 180 ............................................................... 16-03
Lindsay v O’Loughnane [2010] EWHC 529 (QB) ........................................................... 7-49
Lighthouse Carwood Ltd v Luckett [2007] EWHC 2866 (QB) .......................... 10-07, 22-18
Linklaters Business Services v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd [2010]
EWHC 2931 (TCC)................................................................................................. 16-143
Lintott Property Developments Ltd v Bower, 27 May 2005 .......................................... 4-187
Lion Nathan Ltd v C-C Bottlers Ltd [1996]
1 WLR 1438 (PC)................................................ 9-05, 9-07, 9-18, 9-34, 9-35, 9-37, 9-40,
9-42, 9-46, 13-34, 13-54, 13-69,
13-70, 13-104, 15-73, 18-52
Lips, The see President of India v Lips Maritime Corp
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957] AC 555 (HL) ............................ 20-01
Liverpool, The (No 2) [1963] P 64 (CA) ..................................................................... 16-176
Llanover, The [1947] P 80 ............................................................4-138, 4-237, 4-241, 18-05
Lloyd v Stanbury [1971] 2 All ER 267 .......................................................................... 4-233
Lloyd’s v Harper (1880) 16 Ch D 290 (CA) .................................................................. 21-04
Lloyds and Scottish Finance Ltd v Modern Cars and Caravans
(Kingston) Ltd [1966] 1 QB 764...............................................4-256, 15-91, 15-92, 20-29
Lloyd’s Bank plc v Parker Bullen [2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 51 ........................................... 7-14
Lobster Group Ltd v Heidelberg Graphic Equipment Ltd [2009]
EWHC 1919 (TCC)..................................................................................................... 8-09
Lodge Holes Colliery Co Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1908] AC 323 (HL) ............ 4-169, 15-49
Logical Computer Supplies Ltd v Euro Car Parks Ltd [2002] IP & T 233;
[2001] All ER (D) 197 ........................................................................... 2-05, 4-161, 4-172
Lombard North Central plc v Butterworth [1987] QB 527 (CA) .................................... 5-32
London and South of England Building Society v Stone [1983]
1 WLR 1242 (CA) ................................................................................................... 16-172
 Table of Cases liii

London Corporation, The [1935] P 70 (CA) .............................4-165, 4-234, 4-250, 16-216,

16-222, 16-224
London County Freehold & Leasehold Properties Ltd v Wallis-Whiddett
[1950] WN 180 ......................................................................................................... 4-188
London Joint Stock Bank Ltd v Macmillan [1918] AC 777 (HL) ................................ 16-247
Long v Southwark London Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 403 ........................... 19-74
Lonsdale v Howard & Hallam Ltd [2007] UKHL 32; [2007] 1 WLR 2055 (HL) ........... 5-54
Loria v Hammer [1989] 2 EGLR 249 ................................................................ 8-17, 16-226
Louis Dreyfus Trading Ltd v Reliance Trading Ltd [2004] EWHC 525 (Comm);
[2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 ..........................................................4-100, 4-112, 4-216, 5-33,
6-18, 6-20, 6-46, 6-47
Lowick Rose LLP v Swynson Ltd [2017] UKSC 32; [2017] 2 WLR
1161 (SC) ................................................... 15-12, 15-14, 15-20, 16-122, 16-127, 16-128,
16-165, 21-05, 21-15, 21-22, 21-45, 21-59
LSREF III Wight Ltd v Gateley LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 359 ............... 14-108, 14-109, 16-45
Luffeorm Ltd v Kitsons LLP [2015] EWHC B10 (QB) .................................................. 13-12
Lunn Poly Ltd v Liverpool & Lancashire Properties Ltd [2006]
EWCA Civ 430; [2006] 2 EGLR 29 (CA) .............. 1-16, 8-16, 10-03, 22-05–22-07, 22-23
Lyndale Fashion Manufacturers v Rich [1973] 1 WLR 73 (CA) .................................. 13-128
M’s Guardian v Lanarkshire Health Board [2013] CSIH 3 .......................................... 14-156
M&J Marine Engineering Services Co Ltd v Shipshore Ltd [2009]
EWHC 2031 (Comm)............................................................................ 4-37, 4-117, 4-231
Mabey Plant Hire Ltd v Richens, 6 May 1993 (CA)...................................................... 16-41
MacMahon v Hamilton [2002] Lloyd’s Rep PN 33 (Northern Ireland HC) .................. 16-64
Macquarie Internationale Investments Ltd v Glencore UK Ltd (No 2)
[2009] EWHC 2267 (Comm); [2010] 1 BCLC 238; [2010] EWCA Civ 697;
[2011] 1 BCLC 561 (CA) .............................................. 9-15, 9-37, 9-39, 9-41, 9-43, 9-46
Maden v Clifford Coppock & Carter [2004] EWCA Civ 1037;
[2005] 2 All ER 43 (CA).................................................................... 13-81, 13-89, 13-117
Maestro Bulk Ltd v Cosco Bulk Carrier Co Ltd [2014] EWHC 3978 (Comm) ............. 13-30
Mahony v Kruschich (1985) 156 CLR 522 (HC of Australia) ....................................... 15-39
Malcolm v Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford
(t/a Oxford University Press) [1994] EMLR 17 (CA) ................................................. 18-41
Malhotra v Choudhury [1980] Ch 52 (CA)........................ 4-268, 6-39, 16-27, 17-37, 17-38
Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998]
AC 20 (HL) ...................................................................... 5-58, 5-60, 13-47, 18-39, 18-41
Mallett v McMonagle [1970] AC 166 (HL) .................................................................. 12-01
Mallon v Halliwells LLP [2012] EWCA Civ 1212......................................................... 4-235
Malvenna v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1112 ................................... 7-09
Malyon v Lawrence, Messer & Co [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 539 (QB) .............................. 14-28
Manchester and Oldham Bank Ltd v WA Cook & Co (1884) 49 LT 674 ....................... 7-32
Mander v Commercial Union Assurance Co plc [1998]
Lloyd’s Rep IR 93 .............................................................................. 16-167, 20-14, 20-18
Mandrake Holdings Ltd v Countrywide Assured Group plc [2005] EWCA Civ 940....... 9-49
Manorgate Ltd v First Scottish Property Services Ltd [2013] CSOH 108 ............... 3-44, 3-45
Mantovani v Carapelli SpA [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 374 (CA) .......................................... 10-06
Manubens v Leon [1919] 1 KB 208 ............................................................................ 13-111
Marathon Asset Management LLP v Seddon [2017]
EWHC 300 (Comm)......................................... 10-09, 17-17, 18-25, 18-29, 22-03, 22-08,
22-19, 22-24, 23-19, 23-24
Marbé v George Edwardes (Daly’s Theatre) Ltd [1928] 1 KB 269 (CA) ........................ 18-41
liv Table of Cases

March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 (HC of Australia)................ 14-88
Marcus v Myers and Davis (1895) 11 TLR 327 ............................................................ 18-46
Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA v Bergbau-Handel GmbH
(The Mihalis Angelos) [1971] 1 QB 164 (CA) ..........................13-22, 13-23, 13-34, 13-41
Marimpex Mineralöl Handeslsgesellschaft mbH v Louis Dreyfus et Compagnie
Menralöl GmbH [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 167 ................................................................. 4-86
Marionette Ltd v Visible Information Packaged Systems Ltd, 25 July 2002 .................... 8-11
Markel International Insurance v Surety Guarantee Consultants [2008]
EWHC 3087 (Comm).................................................................................................. 1-27
Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co
(Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742 (SC)...................................................... 1-55
Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd
[2012] NZSC 11.............................................................................. 16-179, 16-180, 24-07
Marshall v Mackintosh (1898) 14 TLR 458..................................................... 3-101, 18-101
Marshall v Rubypoint Ltd [1997] 1 EGLR 69 (CA) ................................ 8-20, 16-247, 19-81
Martindale v Duncan [1973] 1 WLR 574 (CA) ............................................................. 16-92
Mason v British Railways Board, 6 October 1992 (CA) ..................................... 4-146, 4-179
Mason v Westside Cemeteries Ltd (1996) 135 DLR (4th) 361 (Ontario Ct) .................. 4-261
Masood v Zahoor [2008] EWHC 1034 (Ch) ................................................................ 16-34
Mather v Barclays Bank [1987] 2 EGLR 254 ................................................................ 4-187
Mathiesen v Clintons [2013] EWHC 3056 (Ch)............................................................ 18-22
Matlaszek v Bloom Camillin (a firm) [2003] EWHC 2728 (Ch) .............. 3-94, 14-135, 18-53
Mattocks v Mann [1993] RTR 13 (CA) ........................................................................ 16-92
MB Pyramid Sound NV v Briese Schiffahrts GmbH & Co KG MS Sina
(The Ines) (No.2) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 144 .............................................................. 4-216
McAll v Brooks [1984] RTR 99 (CA) ............................................................ 16-130, 16-153
McBride v UK Insurance Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 144 .................................................. 16-154
McCall v Abelesz [1976] QB 585 (CA) ......................................................................... 19-74
McCamley v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 963 (CA) ..................... 16-135
McCandless Aircraft LC v Payne [2010] EWHC 1835 (QB) .................................. 5-09, 7-11
McConville v Barclays Bank plc (1993) 12 LDAB 520, [1993] 2 Bank LR 211............. 19-13
McCoy & Co v Clark (1982) 13 HLR 87 (CA).................................................. 19-32, 19-81
McElroy Milne v Commercial Electronics Ltd [1993]
1 NZLR 39 (NZCA) ................................................................................. 3-53, 3-94, 7-19
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59 (HL) ................................ 16-235, 19-09
McGill v Sports and Entertainment Media Group [2016]
EWCA Civ 1063........................................................................................... 13-110, 24-16
McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd [2007] EWHC 149 (TCC);
[2007] EWHC 698 (TCC) ............................................ 4-169, 4-199, 15-71, 15-76, 15-77
McGrath v Stewart, 11 November 2008 (Irish HC) ...................................................... 17-38
McKew v Holland, Hammond & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969]
3 All ER 1621 (HL) ................................................................................................... 16-97
McKinnon v e.surv Ltd (formerly known as GA Valuation & Survey Ltd)
[2003] EWHC 475 (Ch) ............................................................................................ 17-09
McLaren Murdoch & Hamilton Ltd v Abercromby Motor Group Ltd
(2002) 100 Con LR 63 .............................................................................................. 21-12
McLaughlin v Governor of the Cayman Islands [2007] UKPC 50 ................................. 16-31
McLeish v Amoo-Gottfried & Co (1993) 10 PN 102 .................................................... 19-11
McLelland v Greater Glasgow Health Board 1999 SLT 543, 1999 SC 305
(Court of Session, OH) .............................................................................................. 11-14
 Table of Cases lv

McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377

(HC of Australia)................................................................................. 4-233, 18-61, 18-68
McSherry v Coopers Creek Vineyard Ltd (2005)
8 NZBLC 101 .................................................................. 4-63, 4-93, 4-251, 20-08, 20-10
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol & Co [1962] 1 WLR 295 (HL)................................... 13-12
Mediana, The see Owners of SS Mediana v Owners, Masters and Crew
of The Lightship Comet
Meek v Wendt (1888) 21 QBD 126 ................................................................................ 9-04
Mehmet Dogan Bey v GG Abdeni & Co Ltd [1951] 2 KB 405 .......................... 7-29, 14-182
Melachrino v Nickoll and Knight [1920] 1 KB 693................................... 4-30, 15-45, 17-22
Melhuish & Saunders Ltd v Hurden [2012] EWHC 3119 (TCC)........... 4-176, 6-07, 16-112,
16-113, 19-74
Mellowes Archital Ltd v Bell Projects Ltd (1997) 58 Con LR 22 (CA) ............... 4-262, 4-264
Meredith Jones & Co Ltd v Vangemar Shipping Co Ltd (The Apostolis) (No 2)
[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 292; [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 337 (CA) ................. 4-161, 4-172, 4-199,
4-234, 16-197
Merivale Moore plc v Strutt & Parker [1999] 2 EGLR 171 (CA).................................. 13-68
Merlin Financial Consultants Ltd v Cooper [2014] EWHC 1196 (QB) ......................... 10-07
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Owners of the SS Marpessa
(The Marpessa) [1907] AC 241 (HL) ................................................................. 6-63, 6-65
Metalhaandel JA Magnus BV v Ardfields Transport Ltd and Eastfell Ltd
[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 197 ............................................................................................ 1-65
MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd [2011] 4 LRC 1
(Singapore CA) ......................................................................................................... 14-41
Michael Green (Leasing) Ltd v Greatsunny Ltd [2010] EWHC 1887 (Ch);
[2010] Ch 558 ........................................................................................................... 10-03
Midco Holdings Ltd v Piper [2004] EWCA Civ 476 ..................................................... 16-75
Midland Bank plc v Cox McQueen (a firm) [1999] PNLR 593 (CA) .......................... 15-122
Mihalis Angelos, The see Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA v Bergbau-Handel GmbH
Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [1987]
AC 539 (HL) ....................................................................................2-13, 2-14, 2-29, 2-56
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443 (HL) ............................. 1-59, 17-11
Milner v Carnival plc [2010] EWCA Civ 389; [2010]
3 All ER 701 (CA) ............................................................. 2-36, 2-62, 2-64, 19-07, 19-08,
19-32, 19-72, 19-76, 19-77
Mining Supplies (Longwall) Ltd v Baker [1988] ICR 676 (EAT) ................................... 13-45
Ministry of Defence v Cannock [1995] 2 All ER 449 (EAT) .........2-45, 13-45, 15-139, 18-01
Ministry of Defence v Wheeler [1998] 1 WLR 637; [1998]
1 All ER 790 (CA) ............................................................................................ 5-34, 13-50
Ministry of Sound (Ireland) Ltd v World Online Ltd [2003]
EWHC 2178 (Ch)...................................................................................................... 16-31
Minscombe Properties Ltd v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Son Ltd
[1986] 2 EGLR 15 (CA) ................................................................................. 4-173, 4-198
Mira v Aylmer Square Investments Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 45 (CA) ............................ 8-11, 8-18
Mirant Asia-Pacific Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd v Ove Arup &
Partners International Ltd [2007] EWHC 918 (TCC) ................................................ 21-12
Miskin v St John Vaughan (a firm), 18 November 1999 (CA) ................................ 7-47, 7-48
MJB Enterprises Ltd v Defence Construction (1951) Ltd [1999]
1 SCR 619 (SC of Canada) ........................................................................................ 13-54
MMP GmbH v Antal International Network Ltd [2011]
EWHC 1120 (Comm).......................................................................... 18-03, 18-11, 18-89
lvi Table of Cases

Mobil North Sea Ltd v PJ Pipe and Valve Co (t/a PJ Valve Ltd) [2001]
EWCA Civ 741.............................................. 15-09, 15-16, 15-87, 15-99, 16-105, 16-168
Modern Engineering v Gilbert-Ash [1974] AC 689 (HL) ................................... 4-262–4-264
Molling & Co v Dean & Son Ltd (1901) 18 TLR 217 .................................................... 4-90
Molton Street Capital LLP v Shooters Hill Capital Partners
LLP [2015] EWHC 3419 (Comm) ...............................................1-26, 1-27, 4-117, 4-123,
4-127, 4-251, 14-78
Monarch Steamship Co Ltd v Karlshamns Oljefabriker
(A/B) [1949] AC 196 (HL).............................................. 6-05, 8-02, 14-33, 15-39, 16-204
Mondel v Steel (1841) 8 M & W 858 ........................................................................... 4-262
Monk v Cann Hall Primary School [2013] EWCA Civ 826; [2013] IRLR 732 (CA) ....... 5-60
Montevideo Gas and Drydock Co Ltd v Clan Line Steamers Ltd (1921)
6 Ll L Rep 539; (1921) 8 Ll L Rep 192 (CA) .................... 4-38, 4-237, 6-50, 16-38, 16-79
Mooney v Irish Geotechnical Services Ltd, 24 February 1997 (Irish HC) ...................... 4-211
Moore v DER Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1476 (CA) ..................................................... 6-08, 16-245
Moore v Zerfahs [1999] Lloyd’s Rep PN 144 (CA) ....................................................... 16-64
Moorjani v Durban Estates Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1252; [2016]
1 WLR 2265 (CA) ............................................................................................ 6-72, 19-29
Morgan v Perry (1974) 229 EG 1737.............................................................................. 3-54
Morgan Stanley & Co International plc v China Haisheng Juice Holdings Ltd
[2009] EWHC 2409 (Comm); [2011] 2 BCLC 287 ................................................... 10-06
Morgans v Alpha Plus Security Ltd [2005] ICR 125 (EAT) ......................................... 16-140
Morrow v First National Bank of Hot Springs (1977) 550 SW 2d 429
(SC of Arkansas).............................................................................. 14-10, 14-177, 16-247
Mortgage Agency Services Number One Ltd v Edward Symmons LLP
[2013] EWCA Civ 1590 ................................................................................. 7-15, 16-103
Mortgage Corp Ltd v Mitchells Roberton 1997 SLT 1305 (Court of Session, OH) ..... 15-122
Mortgage Corp plc v Halifax (SW) Ltd (No 2) [1999] Lloyd’s Rep PN 159 .................... 3-82
Mortgage Express v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [2016] EWHC 1830 (Ch) .................... 7-28
Mortgage Express v Iqbal Hafeez Solicitors [2011] EWHC 3037 (Ch)........................ 15-122
Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd [1973] AC 331 (HL)........................................................ 1-12
Motium Pty Ltd v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 65................... 4-257
Mouat v Betts Motors Ltd [1959] AC 71 (HL) ............................................................. 4-133
Mount v Barker Austin (a firm) [1998] PNLR 493 (CA) ............................................... 13-92
Mowbray v Merryweather [1895] 2 QB 640 (CA) ........................................................ 16-03
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Cottonex [2016]
EWCA Civ 789; [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 494 (CA) ....................................................... 16-36
Mueller Europe Ltd v Central Roofing (South Wales) Ltd [2013]
EWHC 237 (TCC).............................................................................. 4-43, 4-179, 15-122,
16-16, 16-234
Mulholland v Mitchell [1971] AC 666 (HL) ................................................................... 1-32
Multi Veste 226 BV v NI Summer Row Unitholder BV [2011] EWHC 2026
(Ch); (2011) 139 Con LR 23 ..................................................................................... 13-79
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd [2006]
EWHC 1341 (TCC)............................................................................. 4-262, 4-263, 4-266
Mulvenna v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1112 ...................... 13-57, 14-04
Munroe Equipment Sales Ltd v Canadian Forest Products Ltd (1961)
29 DLR (2d) 730 (Manitoba CA) ................................................................... 8-09, 14-170
Murad v Al Saraj [2005] EWCA Civ 959 ...................................................................... 23-07
Murano v Bank of Montreal (1995) 20 BLR (2d) 61 (Ontario Court of Justice);
(1998) 163 DLR (4th) 21 (Ontario CA) .................................................................... 14-28
 Table of Cases lvii

Murfin v Campbell [2011] EWHC 1475 (Ch) .................................................... 17-09, 20-10

Murray v Lloyd [1989] 1 WLR 1060 ..................................................................... 3-38, 3-68
Mustapha v Culligan of Canada [2008] 2 SCR 114 (SC of Canada) ............................. 19-38
National Australia Bank Ltd v Nemur Varity P/L [2002] 4 VR 252 (Victoria CA) ........ 14-28
National Coal Board v Galley [1958] 1 WLR 16 (CA) ........................................... 1-25, 2-07
National Insurance Co of New Zealand Ltd v Espagne (1961)
105 CLR 569 (HC of Australia) .............................................................................. 16-123
National Westminster Bank plc v Rabobank Nederland (No 3) [2007]
EWHC 1742 (Comm)..................................................................................... 10-06, 20-28
Nationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd [2009]
EWHC 254 (Comm); [2010] 1 WLR 258 .................................................. 2-27, 2-30, 2-33
Naughton v O’Callaghan [1990] 3 All ER 191 .......... 3-39, 3-108, 3-109, 4-83, 4-87, 17-48,
17-49, 17-51, 17-52, 17-54, 17-55
Naumann v Ford [1985] 2 EGLR 70........................................................................... 16-129
Naxos, The [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 149.................................................................. 4-168, 6-35
Needler Financial Services Ltd v Taber [2002] 3 All ER 501 ............................ 16-69, 16-147
Nelson v British Broadcasting Corp [1979] ICR 110 (CA) ............................................ 13-47
Neri v Retail Marine Corp 285 NE 2d 311 (1972) (NYCA) ........................................... 5-40
Nestle v National Westminster Bank plc [1993] 1 WLR 1260 (CA) .............................. 13-70
Newman v Framewood Manor Management Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 159 ...... 8-17, 19-74
Newton Abbot Development Co Ltd v Stockman Bros (1931) 47 TLR 616 .................. 4-198
Ng v Crabtree [2011] EWHC 1834 (Ch)......................................................................... 9-16
Niazi Services Ltd v Van der Loo [2004] EWCA Civ 53; [2004] 1 EGLR 62 (CA) ........ 19-32
Nicholas Prestige Homes v Sally Neal [2010] EWCA Civ 1552 .................................. 13-109
Nicholson v Knox Ukiwa & Co (a firm) [2008] EWHC 1222 (QB);
[2008] PNLR 33 ........................................................................................... 13-90, 13-117
Nolan v Dental Manufacturing Co Ltd [1958] 2 All ER 449 ...................................... 16-229
Normhurst Ltd v Dornoch Ltd [2004] EWHC 567 (Comm) ........................................... 9-49
North Sea Energy Holdings NV v Petroleum Authority of Thailand
[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 418; [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 483 (CA) ................... 5-50, 13-04, 13-22,
13-87, 14-78
Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson [1973] 1 WLR 45 (NIRC) ........................... 5-35, 5-59, 13-47
Novasen SA v Alimenta SA [2013] EWHC 345 (Comm) .............................................. 13-43
Novus Aviation Ltd v Alubaf Arab International Bank BSC(c) [2016]
EWHC 1575 (Comm).................................................................7-18, 13-77, 17-01, 17-05
Nulty v Milton Keynes Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 15......................... 12-01, 12-02
Nyckeln Finance Co Ltd v Stumpbrook Continuation Ltd [1994] 2 EGLR 143 .............. 7-14
Nykredit Mortgage Bank plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd (No 2) [1997]
WLR 1627 (HL) ............................................................ 3-16, 3-23, 3-113, 14-95, 14-103,
14-106, 16-65, 16-177, 16-180, 16-182
O & R Jewellers v Terry and Jardine Insurance Brokers [1999]
Lloyd’s Rep IR 436 ....................................................................................... 3-103, 13-115
O’Carroll v Ryanair [2008] Scot SC 23 ......................................................................... 19-08
O’Connor v BDB Kirby & Co [1972] 1 QB 90 (CA)..................................................... 16-06
O’Donoghue v Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council [2001] IRLR 615 (CA).............. 13-50
O’Grady v Westminster Scaffolding Ltd [1962]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 238............................................................... 4-37, 4-54, 4-174, 6-08, 19-19
O’Hare v Coutts & Co [2016] EWHC 2224 (QB) ........................................................ 14-85
O’Laoire v Jackel International Ltd (No 2) [1991] ICR 718 (CA) ............................... 16-120
Oakacre Ltd v Claire Cleaners (Holdings) Ltd [1982] Ch 197 ........................................ 1-19
Oates v Anthony Pitman & Co [1998] PNLR 683 (CA) ........................................ 3-52, 3-90
lviii Table of Cases

Obaseki Bros v Reif & Son Ltd [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 364 (HL) ........................... 4-90, 4-133
Obestain Inc v National Mineral Development Corp Ltd
(The Sanix Ace) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 465 .............................................................. 16-201
Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp v Skibs A/S Avanti
(The Siboen and The Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293 ............................................ 23-17
Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc (The Dynamic)
[2003] EWHC 1936 (Comm); [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 693 .......................................... 16-35
Offer-Hoar v Larkstore Ltd sub nom Technotrade Ltd v Larkstore Ltd
[2006] EWCA Civ 1079; [2006] 1 WLR 2926 (CA) ...................... 16-196, 16-197, 16-199
Ogle v Earl Vane (1867) LR 2 QB 275 .......................................................................... 17-26
Olafsson v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2009] EWHC 2608 (QB) .................... 16-170
Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co [2010]
EWHC 2026 (Comm)..................................................... 5-29, 15-82, 18-69, 18-70, 18-76
Omega Trust Co v Wright Son & Pepper (No 2) [1998]
PNLR 337 ......................................................................................... 3-23, 14-135, 14-146
OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG [2016] EWCA Civ 778;
[2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 432 (CA); [2017] EWCA Civ 195;
[2017] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 93 (CA).................................................................. 4-64, 7-51, 17-53
One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner [2017] QB 1 (CA) ........10-09, 22-06, 22-18, 22-23
Ontario Inc v Select Restaurant Plaza Corp 2006 CanLII 44266
(Ontario SC) ................................................................................................... 18-73, 23-22
Opoku v Tintas [2013] EWCA Civ 1299 ........................................................... 16-89, 16-92
Organic Research Chemicals v Ricketts, 16 November 1961,
Times Law Reports (CA) ......................................................................................... 16-216
Oropesa, The [1943] P 32 ..........................................................14-182, 15-20, 15-88, 16-15
Osei-Adjei v RM Education Ltd, 24 September 2013 (EAT) ......................................... 13-27
Oswald v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [1996] 2 EGLR 104 (CA) .................................... 3-58
Otter v Church, Adams, Tatham & Co [1953] Ch 280 ................................................. 13-08
Out of the Box Pte Ltd v Wanin Industries Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 15
(Singapore CA) ......................................................................14-41, 14-44, 14-52, 14-170,
14-174, 18-77
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd
(The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 (PC) .......................................... 14-01, 14-54, 14-85
Overstone Ltd v Shipway [1962] 1 WLR 117 (CA) ....................................................... 13-44
Owners of Dredger Liesbosch v Owners of SS Edison (The Liesbosch)
[1933] AC 449 (HL) ................................ 4-44, 4-137, 4-141, 4-142, 4-208, 4-209, 4-237,
4-241, 6-08, 16-87, 16-88, 17-28, 18-05
Owners of M/C Four Hearts v Owners of M/V Fortunity
(The Fortunity) [1961] 1 WLR 351 ..............................................4-141, 4-146, 6-38, 6-53
Owners of Mitera Marigo v Owners of Fritz Thyssen (The Fritz Thyssen)
[1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 199 (CA)...................................................... 16-118, 16-227, 16-228
Owners of SS Mediana v Owners, Masters and Crew of The Lightship
Comet (The Mediana) [1900] AC 113 (HL) .............................................. 6-65, 6-71, 6-77
Owners of SS Strathfillan v Owners of SS Ikala (The Ikala) [1929]
AC 196 (HL) ............................................................................................. 5-42, 6-08, 6-55
Owners of The Dirohys v Owners of The Soya (The Soya) [1956]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 557 (CA) ............................................................................................... 6-35
Owners of The Front Ace v Owners of The Vicky 1 (The Vicky 1)
[2008] EWCA Civ 101; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 45 (CA) ..................................... 6-33, 18-51
Owners of The Georgidore v Owners of The Pacific Concord
(The Pacific Concord) [1961] 1 WLR 873 ............................................... 4-168, 6-25, 8-08
 Table of Cases lix

Owners of The Lord Citrine v Owners of The Hebridean Coast

(The Hebridean Coast) [1961] 1 AC 545 (HL) .......................................... 6-65, 6-75, 6-78
Owners of The No 7 Steam Sand Pump Dredger v Owners of The SS Greta
Holme (The Greta Holme) [1897] AC 596 (HL) ......................................................... 6-65
Oxus Gold plc v Oxus Resources Corp [2007] EWHC 770 (Comm) ................... 4-229, 9-11
Ozalid (Group) Export Ltd v African Continental Bank Ltd [1979]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 231........................................................................................................ 7-29
P Samuel & Co Ltd v Dumas [1924] AC 431 (HL) ..................................................... 16-226
P&O Developments Ltd v Guys and Thomas’ National Health Service Trust
(1998) 62 Con LR 38 ................................................................................................ 20-14
Pace Shipping Co Ltd v Churchgate Nigeria Ltd (The Pace) (No 2) [2010]
EWHC 2828 (Comm)..................................................................................... 21-09, 21-23
Pacific Maritime (Asia) Ltd v Holystone Overseas Ltd [2007] EWHC 2319
(Comm); [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 371 ........................................................................... 13-34
Pactolus, The, 166 ER 1079; (1856) Sw 173 ......................................... 4-168, 4-169, 15-105
Page v Combined Shipping and Trading Co Ltd [1997] 3 All ER 656 (CA) .................. 13-58
Page v Sheerness Steel plc [1999] 1 AC 345; [1998] PIQR Q56 (HL)................. 1-25, 16-135
Palatine Graphic Arts Co Ltd v Liverpool City Council [1986] QB 335 (CA) ............. 16-127
Panalpina International Transport Ltd v Densil Underwear Ltd [1981]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 187........................................................................................................ 6-14
Pankhania v London Borough of Hackney [2004] EWHC 323 (Ch) ....... 15-16, 15-87, 15-99
Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd [2006] 3 NZLR 188 (NZ CA) ........... 23-30
Parabola Investments Ltd v Browallia Cal Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 486;
[2011] QB 477 (CA) ................................ 3-96, 3-111, 7-16, 11-09, 12-02, 13-87, 16-100,
17-11, 18-18, 18-34, 18-50, 18-57, 18-77, 18-97
Parallel Productions Ltd v Goss Contracting Co (1968) 69 DLR (2d) 609
(British Columbia SC)................................................................................................ 20-01
Parana, The (1877) 2 PD 118 (CA) .................................................................... 6-14, 14-169
Paratus AMC Ltd v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [2011] EWHC 3307 (Ch) ..... 16-177, 16-192
Parbulk AS v Kristen Marine SA [2010] EWHC 900 (Comm); [2011]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 220................................................................................ 9-47, 15-45, 16-158
Parker v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp (1970) 474 P 2d 689
(SC of California) .................................................................................................... 16-111
ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338; [2013]
2 WLR 939 (CA) ....................................................................................................... 13-10
Paros plc v Worldlink Group plc [2012] EWHC 394 (Comm) ........................................ 7-30
Parry v Cleaver [1970] AC 1 (HL) ................................................................. 16-123, 16-128
Parsons v BNM Laboratories Ltd [1964] 1 QB 95 (CA)................................. 13-127, 16-138
Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd [1978]
QB 791 (CA) ........................................................ 4-41, 4-78, 4-137, 4-258, 14-54, 14-56,
14-57, 14-59, 14-66, 16-13, 18-96
Parta Industries Ltd v Canadian Pacific Ltd (1974) 48 DLR
(3d) 463 (British Columbia SC) ............................................................... 6-52, 6-53, 14-78
Patel v Hooper & Jackson, 8 August 1996; [1999] 1 WLR 1792 (CA) ........ 1-25, 1-30, 3-22,
3-30, 3-39, 3-44, 3-45, 3-51–3-52,
3-75, 3-106, 17-43, 17-49, 17-60, 19-74
Patel v Beenessreesingh [2012] UKPC 18 ........................................................................ 1-31
Patrick v Russo-British Grain Export Co Ltd [1927] 2 KB 535 .............................. 4-37, 4-51
Patterson v Illinois Central Railroad Corp Inc (1906) 97 SW 423 ................................. 14-25
Pattni v First Leicester Buses Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1384 ............................. 15-106, 16-154
Paula Lee Ltd v Robert Zehil & Co Ltd [1983] 2 All ER 390 ................. 13-54, 13-58, 13-61
lx Table of Cases

Payton v Brooks [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 241 (CA)........................................................... 4-211

Payzu Ltd v Saunders [1919] 2 KB 581 (CA) ..........................4-230, 15-112, 16-25, 16-107,
16-109, 16-111
Pearce & High Ltd v Baxter (1999) 66 Con LR 110 (CA)........................................... 16-114
Pearson v Boliden Ltd (2002) 222 DLR (4th) 453 (British Columbia CA)..................... 16-61
Pearson v Sanders Witherspoon [2000] PNLR 110 (CA) ..................... 13-117, 14-28, 14-133
Pearson Education Ltd v Charter Partnership Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 130;
[2007] 2 EGLR 89 (CA) ................................................................................. 16-04, 16-05
Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
[2006] EWCA Civ 386; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 511 (CA) .............................................. 1-21
Peevyhouse v Garland Coal & Mining Co (1962) 382 P 2d 109
(SC of Oklahoma) .......................................................................................... 4-171, 4-189
Pegase, The see Satef-Huttenes Albertus SpA v Paloma Tercera Shipping Co SA
Pegasus v Ernst & Young [2012] EWHC 738 (Ch) ................12-07, 16-196, 16-197, 16-199
Pegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd (2000) 70 Con LR 68 .......................................... 4-162, 15-105
Pell Frischmann Engineering Ltd v Bow Valley Iran Ltd [2009] UKPC 45;
[2011] 1 WLR 2370 (PC) ................................. 10-08, 10-09, 22-02, 22-03, 22-06, 22-07,
22-09, 22-10, 22-23, 23-11
Penarth Dock Engineering Co Ltd v Pounds [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 359 ......................... 22-02
Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co (P&O) v Youell
[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 136 (CA)....................................................................... 19-08, 19-65
Pennant Hills Restaurants Pty Ltd v Barrell Insurances Pty Ltd
(1981) 55 ALJR 258 (HC of Australia) ................................................... 1-27, 1-31, 20-04
Peregrine Systems Ltd v Steria Ltd [2004] EWHC 275 (TCC) ......................................... 2-25
Perera v Vandiyar [1953] 1 WLR 672 (CA) ....................................................... 19-74, 23-30
Perestrello e Companhia Limitada v United Paint Co Ltd [1969]
1 WLR 570 (CA) ....................................................................................................... 18-27
Performance Cars v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33 (CA) ................4-251, 11-08, 16-213, 16-229
Perkin v Lupton Fawcett (a firm) [2008] EWCA Civ 418 ............................................ 13-110
Perry v Day [2004] EWHC 3372 (Ch); [2005] 2 BCLC 405 ......................................... 21-35
Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 314 .............................................. 13-92, 13-107
Perry v Sidney Phillips & Son [1982] 1 All ER 1005; [1982] 1 WLR 1297 (CA)............ 3-22,
3-24, 3-57, 3-58, 3-82, 3-83, 3-85, 3-86, 19-74, 19-75
Peters v East Midlands Strategic Health Authority [2009]
EWCA Civ 145; [2010] QB 48 (CA) .......................................................... 16-139, 16-176
Peterson v Rivlin [2002] EWCA Civ 194 .................................................................... 14-140
Petroleo Brasileiro SA v ENE Kos 1 Ltd [2012] UKSC 17 ............................................. 15-12
PGF II SA v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance plc [2010]
EWHC 1459 (TCC)..................................................................4-184, 4-186, 6-34, 15-105
PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd
[2017] SGCA 26 (Singapore CA) ............................................................................... 23-35
Phethean-Hubble v Coles [2012] EWCA Civ 349 ......................................................... 13-03
Philadelphia, The [1917] P 101 (CA) ............................................................................ 4-138
Philips v Ward [1956] 1 WLR 471 (CA) .................................. 3-22, 3-51, 3-77, 3-83, 17-49
Phillips & Co v Whatley (Gibraltar) [2007] UKPC 28 .......................... 13-92, 13-97, 13-117
Phoebus D Kyprianou Coy v Wm H Pim Jnr & Co Ltd [1977]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 570........................................................................................... 13-40, 15-45
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980]
AC 827 (HL) ....................................................................................1-12, 1-13, 1-22, 6-69
Pilkington v Wood [1953] Ch 770 .............................................................................. 16-170
Pinnock Bros v Lewis & Peat Ltd [1923] 1 KB 690........................4-60, 16-03, 20-08, 20-29
 Table of Cases lxi

Piper v Hales, 18 January 1993 .............................................................................. 6-65, 6-72

PJ Spillings (Builders) Ltd v Bonus Flooring Ltd [2008] EWHC 1516 (QB) .................. 18-65
Platform Funding Ltd v Anderson & Associates Ltd [2012]
EWHC 1853 (QB) ........................................................................................ 13-71, 16-238
Platform Funding Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc (formerly Halifax plc) [2008]
EWCA Civ 930; [2009] 2 All ER 344 (CA) ............................................................. 15-121
Platform Home Loans Ltd v Oyston Shipways Ltd [2000]
2 AC 190 (HL) .................................................. 14-106, 14-107, 14-109, 14-118, 14-159,
14-183, 15-36, 15-133
Platt v London Underground Ltd [2001] 2 EGLR 121 (Ch) .......................................... 16-78
Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SPA [2014]
EWHC 2613 (QB); [2016] 1 WLR 3169 (CA)......................................................... 16-161
Playup Interactive Entertainment (UK) Pty Ltd v Givemefootball Ltd
[2011] EWHC 1980 (Comm) ............................................................................. 2-19, 2-42
Plumbly v BeatthatQuote.com Ltd [2009] EWHC 321 (QB) ........................................... 9-11
Plummer v Tibsco Ltd, 9 March 2001; [2002] EWCA Civ 102; [2002]
1 EGLR 29 (CA)........................................................... 3-88, 3-107, 13-121, 18-05, 18-08
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 442 (HL) ..................................... 13-49–13-51
Pope v Energem Mining (IOM) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1043 ......................... 16-121, 16-135
Pope v St Helen’s Theatre Ltd [1947] KB 30 ...................................................... 14-51, 19-80
Porter v Jones [1942] 2 All ER 570 (CA) ...................................................................... 19-81
Portman v Middleton (1858) 4 CB (NS) 322 (CCP) ........................................................ 6-21
Portman Building Society v Bevan Ashford [2000] 1 EGLR 81 (CA)................. 2-27, 14-146,
16-129, 17-44, 17-49
Porton Capital Technology Funds v 3M UK Holdings Ltd
[2011] EWHC 2895 (Comm) ......................................................................... 18-22, 18-25
Powell v Whitman Breed Abbot & Morgan (a firm) [2003] EWHC 1169 (QB) .............. 3-94
PPG Industries (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Compact Metal Industries Ltd
[2013] SGCA 23 ........................................................................................................ 20-03
Preferred Mortgages Ltd v Bradford & Bingley Estate Agencies Ltd
[2002] EWCA Civ 336 ............................................................................................ 16-162
Prehn v Royal Bank of Liverpool (1870) LR 5 Ex 92 ...................................................... 7-10
Preist v Last [1903] 2 KB 148 (CA) ................................................................................. 4-84
President of India v La Pintada Compania Navigacion SA [1985] AC 104 (HL) ............. 7-05
President of India v Lips Maritime Corp (The Lips) [1988] 1 AC 395 (HL) .... 1-24, 7-40, 9-51
Primavera v Allied Dunbar Assurance plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1327.................... 16-71, 16-72
Property Alliance Group Ltd v RBS plc [2016] EWHC 3342 (Ch) .................................. 7-24
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v McBains Cooper, 27 June 2000 ......................... 3-85, 16-144
Pugh v Cantor Fitzgerald International Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 307 ................................ 1-31
Puglia v C James & Sons [1996] IRLR 70 (EAT) ........................................................ 16-140
Quilter v Hodson Developments Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1125 ........................... 3-60, 16-148
Quinn v Burch Bros (Builders) Ltd [1966] 2 QB 370 (CA) ............................................ 16-12
Quirk v Thomas [1916] 1 KB 516 (CA) .......................................................................... 1-41
R v Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670 (CA) ........................................................................ 15-43
R v Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd, ex parte Bowden [1996] AC 261 (HL) ........ 16-64,
19-53
R v Poggioli (1923) 32 CLR 222 (HC of Australia) ............................................... 6-39, 6-58
R & H Hall Ltd v WH Pim Junr & Co Ltd [1927] All ER Rep 227 (CA);
(1928) 30 Ll L Rep 159; [1928] All ER Rep 763 (HL) ............4-101, 4-102, 4-106, 4-108,
4-113, 4-116, 4-125, 4-216, 4-230, 14-50, 14-78, 20-07
R & S Contractors v Architectural Design Associates, 16 October 1992......................... 3-94
lxii Table of Cases

R & W Paul Ltd v National Steamship Co Ltd (1937) 59 Ll L Rep 28 ....................... 16-201
R+V Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA [2006]
EWHC 42 (Comm)...................................................................................................... 2-25
R Pagnan & Fratelli v Corbisa Industrial Agropacuaria Limitada
[1970] 1 WLR 1306 (CA).......................................................15-16, 15-87, 15-99, 16-105
R Pagnan & Fratelli v Lebanese Organisation for International Commerce
(The Caloric) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 675 .................................................. 4-26, 4-45, 4-220
Racine, The [1906] P 273 (CA) .......................................................................... 4-237, 12-08
Radcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524 (CA) ...................................................................... 18-16
Radford v De Froberville [1977] 1 WLR 1262 .................. 4-30, 4-151, 4-158, 4-166, 4-198,
4-200, 17-01, 17-35, 19-44, 21-48
Rae v Yorkshire Bank plc [1988] FLR 1 (CA) ............................................................... 19-13
Raflatac Ltd v Eade [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 506 ............................................................ 15-125
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2010]
EWHC 1392 (Comm); [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 123 ........................................... 13-15, 13-17
Raineri v Miles [1981] AC 1050 (HL)............................................................................. 6-22
Raja’s Commercial College v Singh & Co Ltd [1977] AC 312 (PC) ................... 6-27, 13-128
Ramco Ltd v Weller Russell & Laws Insurance Brokers Ltd [2008]
EWHC 2202 (QB); [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 27 .............................................. 13-92, 13-115
Ramwade Ltd v WJ Emson & Co Ltd [1987] RTR 72 (CA) ....................... 7-33, 9-49, 16-92
Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 985; [2012] 1 All ER 903 (CA) ................ 6-53
Randall v Raper (1858) EB & E 84 ................................................4-60, 18-96, 20-08, 20-09
Ravengate Estates Ltd v Horizon Housing Group Ltd [2007]
EWCA Civ 1368............................................................................................. 4-185, 4-186
Raw v Croydon London Borough Council [2002] CLY 941 (CC) ................................. 19-08
RE Davis Chemical Corp v Diasonics (1991) 924 F 2d 709 (USCA 7th Cir) ................... 5-40
Reading v Attorney-General [1951] AC 507 (HL)......................................................... 23-03
Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust [2015]
EWCA Civ 1119...................................................................................................... 16-230
Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat Board [1956] AC 266 (HL) ..................... 16-15
Red Bank Manufacturing Co Ltd v Meadows [1992] ICR 204 (EAT) ........................... 13-51
Red Deer College v Michaels [1976] 2 SCR 324 (SC of Canada) ....................... 5-34, 15-112
Red River UK Ltd v Sheikh [2010] EWHC 1100 (Ch) .................................................. 16-78
Redbus LMDS Ltd v Jeffrey Green & Russell (a firm) [2006] EWHC 2938 (Ch) .......... 20-02
Redpath Industries Ltd v The Cisco (1993) 110 DLR (4th) 583 ............... 4-95, 4-164, 4-251,
16-79, 16-123, 16-132
Reed v Madon [1989] Ch 408....................................................................................... 19-08
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360 (HL) ..... 16-101, 16-235
Reeves v Thrings & Long [1996] PNLR 265 (CA) .......................3-52, 3-105, 17-49, 18-101
Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 361 ............................. 8-13, 19-51
Reichman v Beveridge [2006] EWCA Civ 1659; [2007] 1 EGLR 37 (CA)..................... 16-31
Reinhard v Ondra [2015] EWHC 2943 (Ch) ......................................................... 7-45, 7-47
Renold Australia Pty Ltd v Fletcher Insulation (Vic) Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 294
(Victoria CA) .................................................................................................... 4-78, 4-101
Re-Source America International Ltd v Platt Site Services Ltd [2004]
EWHC 1405 (TCC); (2005) 105 Con LR 30; [2005] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 50 (CA) .................................................................................... 15-109, 15-111, 17-09
Rey v Graham & Oldham [2000] BPIR 354 ................................................................. 19-11
RG McLean Ltd v Canadian Vickers Ltd (1970) 15 DLR (3d) 15 (Ontario CA).....4-78, 4-237
Rhesa Shipping Co v Edmunds (The Popi M) [1985] 1 WLR 948 (HL) ........................ 12-02
 Table of Cases lxiii

Richard Adler v Soutos (Hellas) Maritime Corp (The Argo Hellas) [1984]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 296...................................................................................................... 24-10
Richardson v Mellish, 130 ER 294; (1824) 2 Bing 229 ...................................... 1-25, 13-109
Rivers v George White and Sons Co Ltd (1919) 46 DLR 145 (Saskatchewan CA) ........ 14-41
Robbins of Putney Ltd v Meek [1971] RTR 345 ........................................................... 16-88
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850 ................................ 1-35, 1-36, 1-37, 1-40, 1-49,
4-268, 8-01, 15-05
Robophone Facilities Ltd v Blank [1966] 1 WLR 1428 (CA) .......1-31, 13-121, 14-32, 16-34
Robot Arenas Ltd v Waterfield [2010] EWHC 115 (QB)................................................. 4-39
Rodliffe v Rodliffe [2012] EWHC 917 (Ch) .................................................................... 2-56
Rodocanachi Sons & Co v Milburn Bros (1886) 18 QBD 67 (CA) ..... 4-93, 4-98, 4-101, 4-106,
4-108, 4-111, 4-125, 4-137, 5-17
Rolin v Steward (1854) 14 CB 595 ............................................................................... 18-38
Rolls Royce Power Engineering Plc v Ricardo Consulting Engineers Ltd
[2003] EWHC 2871 (TCC) ................................................................... 6-72, 21-04, 21-17
Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 (HL) ...................................................................... 23-31
Roper v Johnson (1873) LR 8 CP 167......................................................................... 15-112
Rosserlane Consultants Ltd v Credit Suisse International [2015]
EWHC 384 (Ch); [2017] EWCA Civ 91 .................................................................... 18-21
Roth & Co Ltd v Taysen Townsend & Co (1896) 12 TLR 211 (CA) ............................ 15-45
Rowlands v Collow [1992] 1 NZLR 178 (NZ HC) ................................ 4-183, 19-25, 19-51
Rowley v Cerberus Software Ltd [2001] IRLR 160 (CA) ................................................ 5-34
Rowntree & Sons Ltd v Allen & Sons (Poplar) Ltd (1935) 41 Com Cas 90 .................... 1-25
Royal Bank of Canada v W Got & Associates Electric Ltd [1999]
3 SCR 408 (SC of Canada) ........................................................................................ 23-35
Royal Bristol Permanent Building Society v Bomash (1887) 35 Ch D 390....................... 6-27
Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 3) [2002] UKHL 14;
[2002] 1 WLR 1397 (HL).......................................................................................... 24-13
Royle v Trafford Borough Council [1984] IRLR 184 ...................................................... 2-57
Royscot Commercial Leasing Ltd v Ismail, 29 April 1993 (CA) ...................................... 9-47
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297 (CA)........................................ 3-109, 15-39
RP Explorer Master Fund v Chilukuri [2013] EWHC 103 (Ch) .................................... 15-80
Ruabon Steamship Co Ltd v London Assurance Co (The Ruabon) [1900]
AC 6 (HL) .................................................................................................. 16-218, 16-220
Rubenstein v HSBC Bank plc [2012] EWCA Civ 1184 ...............14-04, 14-17, 14-64, 14-92,
14-132, 14-151, 14-172, 15-12,
15-14, 16-69, 16-138,
16-147, 16-232
Rushmer v Countrywide Surveyors (1994) Ltd (1999) 29 LS Gaz 30; [2000]
PNLR 529 ................................................................................................................. 4-208
Rutherford v Seymour Pierce Ltd [2010] EWHC 375 (QB) ........................................... 13-55
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 (HL) ............. 1-36, 2-51,
4-39, 4-42, 4-145, 4-158, 4-159,
4-162, 4-164, 4-170, 4-172, 4-175, 4-176,
4-183, 4-196, 4-197, 4-199, 4-201, 4-247,
19-01, 19-03, 19-19, 19-21, 19-24,
19-48, 19-58, 19-61, 19-74
RWE Nukem Ltd v AEA Technology plc [2005] EWHC 78 (Comm);
[2005] EWCA Civ 1192 .............................................................................................. 9-44
Ryan v Islington London Borough Council [2009] EWCA Civ 578 .............................. 14-04
lxiv Table of Cases

SAAMCo see South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd
Sabena Technics SA v Singapore Airlines Ltd [2003] EWHC 1318 (Comm).................. 21-14
Saddington v Colleys Professional Services [1995] EGCS 109; [1999]
Lloyd’s Rep PN 140 (CA) .......................................................................................... 16-64
Sadler v Reynolds [2005] EWHC 309 (QB) .................................................................. 18-41
Safetynet Security Ltd v Coppage [2013] EWCA Civ 1176; [2013] IRLR 970 (CA)...... 10-07
Saga Cruises BDF Ltd v Fincantieri SPA [2016] EWHC 1875 (Comm) ......... 16-196, 16-197,
21-18, 21-19
Saigol v Cranley Mansion Ltd (No 3) (2000) 72 Con LR 54 (CA) .............. 4-208, 6-07, 7-30
Saint Line Ltd v Richardsons, Westgarth & Co Ltd [1940] 2 KB 99 ............................... 6-48
Salcon Ltd v United Cement Pte Ltd [2004] 4 SLR 353 (Singapore CA)........... 4-252, 16-228
Saleslease Ltd v Davis [1999] 1 WLR 1664 (CA) ................................................. 6-27, 14-69
Salford City Council v Torkington [2004] EWCA Civ 1546..........4-91, 17-48, 18-05, 18-10,
18-58, 18-92
Salvage Association v Cap Financial Services Ltd [1995] FSR 654 .................................. 2-26
Sam Business Systems Ltd v Hedley & Co [2002] EWHC 2733 (TCC) ........................... 2-27
Samani v Walia, 22 April 1994 (CA) ............................................................................. 16-06
Sanders v Parry [1967] 1 WLR 753............................................................................... 10-07
Santa Martha Baay Scheepvaart and Handelsmaatschappij NV v Scanbulk
A/S (The Rijn) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 267 ................................................................... 13-40
Sapwell v Bass [1910] 2 KB 486 .................................................................................... 18-74
Satef-Huttenes Albertus SpA v Paloma Tercera Shipping Co SA (The Pegase)
[1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 175 .................................... 6-23, 14-04, 14-31, 14-44, 14-78, 15-42
Sauber Motorsport AG v Giedo van der Garde BV [2015] VSCA 37 ............................ 12-03
Saunders v Edwards [1987] 1 WLR 1116 (CA) ............................................................. 4-260
Savva v Hussein [1996] 2 EGLR 65 (CA)............................................................. 8-12, 18-73
Sayce v TNT (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1583.................................. 15-20, 16-116, 16-117
SC Confectia SA v Miss Mania Wholesale Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1484 ......... 15-74, 16-103,
16-248
Schering Agrochemicals Ltd v Resibel NV SA, 26 November 1992 (CA) .......... 15-55, 15-76,
15-78, 16-10, 16-224
Schlesinger v Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust, 24 August 2004 (EAT) ............. 15-137
Scope v Thornett [2006] EWCA Civ 1600; [2007] ICR 236 (CA) ................................. 13-49
Scotlife Home Loans (No 2) Ltd v Kenneth James & Co [1995] EGCS 70........... 3-82, 13-70
Scott & Scott v Kennedys Law LLP and Vertex Law LLP [2011] EWHC 3808 (Ch) ........ 3-46,
3-97, 16-91, 17-63
Scottish Power UK plc v BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd [2015]
EWHC 2658 (Comm)................................................................................................ 17-01
Scullion v Bank of Scotland plc [2011] EWCA Civ 693; [2011] 1 WLR 3212 (CA) ..... 14-129
Scutt v Lomax (2000) 79 P & CR D31 (CA)................................4-161, 4-166, 4-178, 4-261
Sea Harvest Corp (Pty) Ltd v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd [2000]
1 SALR 827 (SCA of S Africa) ................................................................................. 16-234
Seafield Holdings Ltd v Drewett [2006] ICR 1413 (EAT) .............................................. 13-50
Seager v Copydex Ltd (No 2) [1969] 1 WLR 809 (CA)...................................... 10-08, 22-20
Seal Rocks Victoria (Australia) Pty Ltd v State of Victoria [2003] VSC 85 ......... 18-61, 18-73
Sealace Shipping Co Ltd v Oceanvoice Ltd (The Alecos M) [1991]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 120 (CA) ........................................... 2-50, 4-39, 4-199, 4-260, 6-78, 15-42
Seatbooker Sales Ltd v Southend United Football Club Ltd [2008] EWHC 157 (QB) ...... 1-31
Seavision Investment SA v Evennett (The Tiburon) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 26 (CA) ........ 20-24
Secretary of State for Employment v Wilson [1978] 3 All ER 137 (EAT) ........................ 5-34
 Table of Cases lxv

Semelhago v Paramadevan [1996] 2 SCR 415 (SC of Canada) ..................... 1-16, 1-17, 4-37,
16-69, 17-37
Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2007] UKHL 34; [2008]
1 AC 561 (HL) ................................................... 7-05, 7-07–7-09, 7-18, 7-26, 7-42, 17-17
Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd v Alcatel Submarine Networks Ltd [1999]
2 Lloyds Rep 423 (CA) ..........................................................9-18, 9-21–9-23, 9-43, 18-28
Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd v STC Submarine Systems Ltd,
20 December 1996 .........................................................................9-12, 9-22, 9-43, 18-28
Sentinel International Ltd v Cordes [2008] UKPC 60 .................................................. 14-159
Services Europe Atlantique Sud v Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag SVEA
(The Folias and The Despina R) [1979] AC 685 (HL) .....................1-59, 1-61, 1-62, 1-63,
1-66, 1-67, 8-07
Seven Seas Properties Ltd v Al-Essa (No 2) [1993] 1 WLR 1083 ..... 4-109, 4-216, 14-31, 14-44
Sharab Developments Ltd v Zellers Inc [1999] SCC 192 (SC of Canada) ...................... 18-32
Sharif v Garrett & Co (a firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1269; [2002] 1 WLR 3118;
[2002] 3 All ER 195 (CA).................................................................. 4-206, 13-107, 15-52
Shatz Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kalovyrnas 1976 (2) AD 545 (SC of South Africa) ......... 14-10
Shaw v Holland (1846) 15 M & W 136........................................................................ 16-95
Shearman v Folland [1950] 2 KB 43 (CA) ..................................................................... 11-10
Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc v Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd (No 2) [1990]
3 All ER 723....................................................................... 4-136, 5-08, 5-23, 7-47, 17-30
Shepherd v Johnson (1802) 2 East 211.......................................................................... 16-95
Shepherd Homes Ltd v Encia Remediation Ltd [2007] EWHC 1710 (TCC) ..... 4-211, 17-56,
20-02, 20-10
Shindler v Northern Raincoat Co Ltd [1960] 1 WLR 1038................. 15-45, 16-108, 16-111
Shove v Downs Surgical plc [1984] 1 All ER 7 ............................................... 13-126, 16-120
Shuman v Coober Pedy Tours Pty Ltd [1994] SASC 4401 ................... 16-173, 16-180, 24-07
SIB International Srl v Metallgesellschaft Corp (The Noel Bay) [1989]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 361 (CA) ............................................................................................. 13-40
Sibley v Grosvenor (1916) 21 CLR 469 (HC of Australia) ............................................ 24-07
Siddiqui v Oxford University [2016] EWHC 3150 (QB) ............................................... 18-44
Sidney Bennett Ltd v Kreeger (1925) 41 TLR 609 ..................................... 4-60, 20-08, 20-29
Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd v Supershield Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 7 .... 14-02, 14-04,
14-17, 14-50, 14-102, 14-159,
14-172, 16-234, 20-15
Signet Partners Ltd v Signet Research and Advisory SA [2007] EWHC 1263 (QB) ....... 23-17
Silvy v Pendragon plc [2001] EWCA Civ 784; [2001] IRLR 685 (CA) .......................... 13-45
Simon v Pawson and Leafs Ltd [1932] All ER Rep 72 (CA) .......................................... 4-236
Simply Irresistible Pty Ltd v Couper [2010] VSC 601.................................................... 11-05
Simpson v London and North Western Railway Co (1876) 1 QBD 274 ........................ 18-18
Sims v Foster Wheeler Ltd [1966] 1 WLR (CA) ............................................................ 20-02
Singer & Friedlander v John D Wood & Co [1977] 2 EGLR 84 ..................................... 3-82
Singh v Yaqubi [2013] EWCA Civ 23 ............................................................................. 6-08
Sivand, The [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 97 (CA) .................................................................... 15-84
Six Continents Retail Ltd v Carford Catering Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1790 ....... 15-18, 16-03
Skipton Building Society v Stott [2001] QB 261 (CA) ................................................... 18-52
Slater v Hoyle & Smith Ltd [1920] 2 KB 11 (CA) ..................4-93, 4-96–4-98, 4-100, 4-101,
4-125, 4-126, 6-20
Slattery v Moore Stephens (a firm) [2003] EWHC 1869 (Ch); [2003] STC 1379 ............ 3-88
Slocom Trading Ltd v Tatik Inc [2013] EWHC 1201 (Ch) ............................................ 11-09
Slough Estates plc v Welwyn Hatfield DC [1996] 2 EGLR 219 ............... 3-110, 3-113, 17-49
lxvi Table of Cases

Small v Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 882 ............. 18-40
Smeed v Foord (1859) 1 E & E 602 ....................................................................... 6-05, 6-43
Smiley v Townshend [1950] 2 KB 311 (CA) ...........................4-187, 16-145, 16-222, 16-224
Smith v Barking, Havering and Brentwood Health Authority [1994] 5 Med LR 285 ..... 13-12
Smith v Brady (1858) 17 NY 173 (NY CA) .................................................................. 19-22
Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] 1 AC 831 (HL) ................................................................... 13-20
Smith v Green (1875) 1 CPD 92.................................................................................... 4-137
Smith v Johnson (1899) 15 TLR 179 .............................................................................. 4-70
Smith v Landstar Properties Inc 2011 BCCA 44............................................................ 22-14
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241 (HL) ....................................... 16-247
Smith v Peter North & Partners (2001) 82 Con LR 126 (CA) ..............3-18, 3-22, 3-73, 3-75
SmithKline Beecham plc v Apotex Europe Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 658;
[2007] Ch 71 (CA) .................................................................................................... 19-45
Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd
[1997] AC 254 (HL) ............................. 3-92, 5-23, 9-11, 9-27, 9-38, 14-91, 14-97, 15-68,
16-53, 16-213, 16-238, 16-249, 17-11, 17-41, 17-49,
17-54, 17-55, 17-57, 17-60, 17-62, 17-70
Smoker v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority [1991] 2 AC 502 (HL)..... 16-128, 16-135
Smyth v Huey & Co [1993] NI 236 .............................................................................. 19-11
Snia Societa di Navigazione Industria e Commercio v Suzuki & Co (1924)
18 Ll L Rep 333 (CA) .............................................................................. 6-32, 8-08, 14-78
Société des Industries Métallurgiques SA v The Bronx Engineering Co Ltd
[1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 465 (CA).................................................................................... 6-48
Société Française Bunge SA v Belcan NV (The Federal Huron) [1985]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 189........................................................................................................ 1-68
Société Générale, London Branch v Geys [2012] UKSC 63; [2013] 1 AC 523 (SC) ......... 5-34
Socimer International Bank Ltd v Standard Bank London Ltd [2006]
EWHC 2896 (Comm).................................................................................................. 7-51
Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates UK Ltd [2016] EWHC 1587 (QB)......... 5-54
Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews [2007] ICR 825 (EAT) ................................................... 13-49
Solholt, The see Sotiros Shipping Inc v Samiet Solholt
Sony Computer Entertainment UK Ltd v Cinram Logistics UK Ltd [2008]
EWCA Civ 955................................................................................................. 4-231, 5-40
Sotiros Shipping Inc v Samiet Solholt (The Solholt) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 580;
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 605 (CA)................................. 15-42, 15-44, 15-112, 16-25, 16-107
Sous Secretaire d’Etat au Ministère des Travaux Publiques Charge de la Marine
Marchande v W & R Barnet (1924) 19 Ll L Rep 120.............................................. 16-115
South African Territories v Wallington [1898] AC 309 (HL) ........................................... 7-09
South Australia Asset Management Corp (SAAMCo) v York Montague Ltd [1997]
1 AC 191 (HL) ..................................1-55, 3-06, 3-11, 3-13, 3-31, 3-53, 3-82, 3-94, 3-95,
3-105, 3-110, 3-113, 4-29, 7-19, 9-02, 13-69, 14-04, 14-86,
14-88, 14-90–14-92, 14-94, 14-95, 14-97, 14-101, 14-106,
14-115, 14-124, 15-15, 15-73, 15-88, 15-133, 16-49, 16-183,
16-206, 17-05, 17-44, 17-49, 17-54, 17-55, 17-59
South Parklands Hockey and Tennis Centre Inc v Brown Falconer Group Pty Ltd
[2004] SASC 81 (SC of South Australia).................................................. 3-18, 4-166, 6-07
Southampton Container Terminals Ltd v Schiffarhts-Gesellschaft ‘Hansa Australia’
mbH & Co (The Maersk Colombo) [2001] EWCA Civ 717; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 275 (CA) .......................................... 4-39, 4-139, 4-161, 4-162, 4-164, 4-193, 4-199,
4-204, 4-234, 4-251, 16-216
 Table of Cases lxvii

Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board 2012 SCC 51
(SC of Canada) .......................................................................................................... 16-22
Sowden v Lodge [2003] EWHC 588 (QB)................................................................... 16-139
Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd [2015]
EWHC 718 (Comm); [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 407; [2016] EWCA Civ 982;
[2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 447 (CA).................................................................................... 5-52
Spencer v Wincanton Holdings [2009] EWCA Civ 1404 ............................................. 15-127
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Louis Dreyfus Corp [1983] Com LR 268 ............................. 13-40
Spring v Guardian Assurance plc [1995] 2 AC 296 (HL) ................................. 13-21, 13-112
Springwell Navigation Corp v JP Morgan Chase Bank [2010] EWCA Civ 122 ............... 1-21
Sprung v Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 111 (CA) .................. 9-49, 16-93
Sri Lanka Omnibus Co Ltd v Perera [1952] AC 76 (PC) ............................... 6-40, 9-11, 9-31
SS Ardennes (Cargo Owners) v SS Ardennes (Owners) [1951] 1 KB 55 .......................... 6-05
SS City of Peking v Compagnie des Messageries Maritimes (Hong Kong)
(1889) 15 App Cas 438 (PC) ............................................................6-24, 6-36, 6-59, 6-78
St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd [1996]
4 All ER 481 (CA) ................................................................................................... 16-146
St Cloud, The, 166 ER 269; (1863) B & L 4 ................................................................... 2-05
St Martin’s Property Corp Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd see Linden Gardens Ltd
v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd
St Ströms Bruks AB v John & Peter Hutchison (a firm) [1905] AC 515 (HL)................ 4-224
Stacey v Autosleeper Group Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1551 .................................. 16-05, 20-08
Standard Chartered Bank v Ceylon Petroleum Corp [2011] EWHC 2094 (Comm)......... 1-33
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp (No 3) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 747; [2001] EWCA Civ 55 ................................... 2-27, 15-09, 15-112, 17-44, 17-49,
17-54, 17-57, 17-62
Standard Life Assurance Ltd v Oak Dedicated Ltd [2008] EWHC 222 (Comm) ......... 16-240
Staniforth v Lyall (1830) 7 Bing 169 ............................................................................... 5-29
Stansbie v Troman [1948] 2 KB 48 (CA) ..................................................................... 16-247
Star of India, The (1876) 1 PD 466 ................................................................................. 6-33
Starlight Shipping Co v Allied Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG [2011]
EWHC 3381 (Comm)................................................................................................ 10-06
Startup v Cortazzi (1835) 2 CM & R 165..................................................................... 16-95
Stedman v Swan’s Tours (1951) 95 Sol Jo 727 (CA) ...................................................... 19-08
Steel v Joy [2004] EWCA Civ 576; [2004] 1 WLR 3002 (CA) .................................... 16-229
Stellarbridge Management Inc v Magna International (Canada) Inc (2004)
71 OR (3d) 263 (Ontairo CA) ........................................................................ 6-34, 15-105
Stephens v Cannon [2005] EWCA Civ 222 ...................................................... 18-25, 18-101
Stephenson Blake (Holdings) Ltd v Streets Heaver Ltd [2001] Lloyd’s
Rep PN 44 ............................................................. 1-43, 3-45, 4-148, 11-01, 15-63, 15-81
Steuerman v Dampcoursing Ltd [2002] EWHC 939 (TCC) ........................................ 16-156
Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 93; [2015]
4 All ER 458 (CA) ................................................................................................... 16-154
Steward v Rapley [1989] 1 EGLR 159 (CA).................................................................... 3-58
Stewart v Cauty (1841) 8 M & W 160.......................................................................... 17-30
Stewart v Scottish Widows & Life Assurance Society plc [2005] EWHC 1831 (QB);
[2006] EWCA Civ 999 ................................................... 7-30, 8-12, 13-128, 18-10, 18-95
Stifft’s Jewelers v Oliver (1984) 678 SW 2d 372 (SC of Arkansas) ..................... 4-261, 19-40
Stocks v Magna Merchants Ltd [1973] 1 WLR 1505 .................................................. 16-120
Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 592 ........................ 16-35
Stoke-on-Trent City Council v W & J Wass Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 1406 (CA)................... 23-03
lxviii Table of Cases

Stone Heritage Developments Ltd v Davis Blank Furniss (a firm), 31 May 2006........... 13-93
Stovold v Barlows [1996] PNLR 91 (CA)...................................................................... 18-49
Strachan v Scottish Boatowners’ Mutual Insurance Association [2001] Scot CS 138;
2010 SC 367 (Court of Session, OH)........................................................................... 9-49
Straits Engineering Contracting Pte Ltd v Merteks Pte Ltd [1996] 4 LRC 259
(Singapore CA) .......................................................................................................... 18-88
Strutt v Whitnell [1975] 1 WLR 870 (CA) ....................................................... 4-149, 16-108
Stuart Peters Ltd v Bell [2009] EWCA Civ 938 ............................................................... 5-35
Stuart Property v Condor Commercial Property [2006] NSWCA 334......................... 14-174
Sturolson & Co v Mauroux [1988] 1 EGLR 66 (CA) ............................... 8-17, 19-32, 19-33
Sudan Import & Export Co (Khartoum) v Société Générale de Compensation
[1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 310 (CA).................................................................................. 13-07
Sugar Hut Group Ltd v AJ Insurance [2014] EWHC 3352 (Comm) ............................. 18-90
Suisse Atlantique Société d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche
Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361 (HL) ........................................................................ 1-22
Suleman v Shahsavari [1988] 1 WLR 1181 ........................................................ 16-24, 17-37
Summers v Salford Corp [1943] AC 283 (HL) .............................................................. 19-81
Sun and Sand Ltd v Fitzjohn [1979] ICR 268 (EAT) ................................................... 16-140
Sunley & Co Ltd v Cunard White Star Line Ltd [1940] 1 KB 740 (CA) .......................... 6-65
Sunlife Europe Properties Ltd v Tiger Aspect Holdings Ltd [2013] EWHC 463 (TCC);
[2013] EWCA Civ 1656 (CA)...................................................4-150, 4-166, 4-168, 4-186
Sunnyside Greenhouses Ltd v Golden West Seeds Ltd (1972) 27 DLR (3d) 434
(Alberta CA); (1973) 33 DLR (3d) 384 ............................................................ 4-78, 4-237
Sunrise Co Ltd v The Ship ‘Lake Winnipeg’ (1991) 77 DLR (4th) 701
(SC of Canada) .............................................................................. 16-213, 16-224, 16-229
Sunrock Aircraft Corp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) [2007]
EWCA Civ 882; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 612 (CA) ....................................................... 4-161
Sunshine Exploration Ltd v Dolly Varden Mines Ltd [1970] SCR 2 (SC of Canada) .... 4-177,
4-189
Sunshine Vacation Villas Ltd v Governor and Co of Adventurers of England Trading
Into Hudson’s Bay (1984) 13 DLR (4th) 93 (British Columbia CA) ............... 18-61, 18-79
Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 1361 (CA).... 22-09, 22-11, 22-20
Swingcastle Ltd v Alastair Gibson (a firm) [1990] 1 WLR 1223 (CA);
[1991] 2 AC 223 (HL) ............................................................ 1-36, 3-23, 3-91, 3-95, 7-28
Swissmarine Services SA v Gupta Coal India Private Ltd [2015] EWHC 265 (Comm) .... 10-06
Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 629; [2016] 1 WLR 1045 (CA) ..... 15-09,
16-127
Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin [2012] EWHC 3443 (Ch); [2013] EWHC 38 (Ch);
[2013] EWHC 174 (Ch) ..................... 7-47, 7-49, 9-12–9-14, 9-18, 9-21–9-23, 9-37, 9-43
Sykes v Midland Bank Executor Co [1971] 1 QB 113 (CA) .................... 13-04, 13-08, 13-12
Sylvester v British Columbia [1997] 2 SCR 315 (SC of Canada) ................................. 16-131
Sylvia Shipping Ltd v Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd [2010] EWHC 542 (Comm)...... 6-27, 8-05,
8-08, 14-78, 14-168
Symrise AG v Baker & McKenzie [2015] EWHC 912 (Comm).......................... 20-19, 20-21
Syrett v Carr & Neave (a firm) [1990] 2 EGLR 161........... 3-74, 16-92, 17-36, 17-49, 17-64
T&S Contractor Ltd v Architectural Design Associates, 16 October 1992 ...................... 6-15
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 72
(HC of Australia)......................................................................1-53, 4-178, 13-123, 19-34
Taberna Europe CDO II plc v Selskabet AF1 [2015] EWHC 871 (Comm); [2016]
EWCA Civ 1262............................................................................................. 15-12, 16-06
Take Ltd v BSM Marketing Ltd [2007] EWHC 3513 (QB); [2009] EWCA Civ 45 ....... 18-92
 Table of Cases lxix

Talisman Property Co (UK) Ltd v Norton Rose (a firm) [2006] EWCA Civ 1104 ........ 13-94,
13-97
Tang Man Sit v Capacious Investments Ltd [1996] AC 514 (PC) ....................... 4-239, 24-08
Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council [1982]
1 WLR 149; [1982] 1 WLR 971 (CA); [1983] 2 AC 509 (HL) ........................... 2-25, 7-48
Tauranga Law v Appleton [2015] NZSC 3 ................................................................... 13-12
Taylor v O’Connor [1971] AC 115 (HL) ........................................................................ 7-57
Taylor & Sons Ltd v Bank of Athens (1922) 91 LJKB 776 .............................................. 4-41
Taylor Flynn v Sulaiman [2006] IEHC 150 ................................................................... 19-09
Taylor Wholesale Ltd v Hepworths Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 659 .......4-199, 4-250, 4-251, 16-216
TCN Channel 9 Ltd v Hayden Enterprises Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 130 (NSW CA) ...... 13-61
Techno Land Improvements Ltd v British Leyland (UK) Ltd [1979] 2 EGLR 27 .....5-30, 5-32,
17-30
Telephone Rentals plc v Burges Salmon, 9 April 1987 (CA) .......................................... 16-34
Texaco Ltd v Arco Technology Inc, 3 October 1989 ..............4-250, 16-224, 16-227, 16-228
Thai Airways International Public Co Ltd v KI Holdings Co Ltd [2015]
EWHC 1250 (Comm)....................... 6-07, 7-47, 7-49, 15-09, 15-12, 15-41, 15-50, 15-62,
15-73, 15-81, 15-89, 15-104, 15-109–15-112,
16-43, 16-50, 16-149, 17-01
Tharros Shipping Co Ltd v Bias Shipping Ltd (The Griparion) (No 2) [1994]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 533............................................................. 4-161, 4-165, 4-173, 5-07, 5-53
Techno Land Improvements Ltd v British Leyland (UK) Ltd [1979] 2 EGLR 27 ........... 17-09
Thomas v Albutt [2015] EWHC 2187 (Ch) .................................................................. 13-88
Thomas v TA Phillips (Builders) Ltd & Taff Ely Borough Council
(1985) 9 Con LR 72 .................................................................................................. 4-211
Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd v Tourmajor Ltd [2013] EWHC 2139 (QB) ............ 2-08
Thomas Eggar Verrall Bowles (a firm) v Rice, 21 December 1999 ........ 3-102, 13-110, 14-47,
16-91
Thomas Gerrard & Son Ltd, Re [1968] 1 Ch 455 ........................................................... 3-88
Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 573 ........................................ 9-41
Thompson Ltd v Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd [1955] Ch 177 .......................................... 5-40
Thornett & Fehr, Re [1921] 1 KB 219 .......................................................................... 13-40
Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association of South Africa v Price Waterhouse
(2001) (4) SA 551 (SC of South Africa) ..................................................................... 14-10
Tickner v Glen Line Ltd [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 468...................................................... 16-230
Times Newspapers Ltd v George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd [2002] FSR 29 ............... 4-133
Tinseltime Ltd v Roberts [2011] EWHC 1199 (TCC) ............................... 2-23, 2-32, 16-195
Titan Europe 2006-3 plc v Colliers International UK plc [2015] EWCA Civ 1083 ..... 16-192,
16-194
Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106 ......... 4-42, 4-189, 4-192, 4-196, 4-198–4-200, 4-249,
19-21, 22-04, 22-23
Tiuta International Ltd v De Villiers Surveyors Ltd [2015] EWHC 773 (Ch);
[2016] EWCA Civ 661 ................................................................................. 16-66, 16-162
Toepfer v Warinco AG [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 569 .......................................................... 16-08
Toledo & Ohio Central Railroad Co v Kibler & Co (1918) 199 NE 733 (Ohio) ........ 16-225
Tolnay v Criterion Film Productions Ltd [1936] 2 All ER 1625 .................................... 18-41
Tom Hoskins plc v EMW Law (a firm) [2010] EWHC 479 (Ch) .............. 3-94, 13-93, 13-98,
14-137, 14-149, 16-99
Tomlinson v Wilson (t/a Wilson & Chamberlain), 11 May 2007 ............ 4-169, 4-195, 15-76
Tonkin v UK Insurance Ltd [2006] EWHC 1120 (TCC); (2006) 107 Con LR 107 ..... 7-51, 9-49
Topfell Ltd v Galley Properties Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 446 ................................................. 4-264
lxx Table of Cases

Toprak Mahsulleri Ofisi v Finagrain Compagnie Commerciale Agricole

et Financière [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 98 (CA) ................................5-19, 13-05, 13-07, 17-26
Torres v Point Lisas Industrial Port Development Corp Ltd (2007)
74 WIR 431 (Trinidad and Tobago CA) .................................................................... 23-32
Total Liban SA v Vitol Energy SA [2001] QB 643 ................................................ 1-27, 20-09
Total Spares and Supplies Ltd v Antares Srl [2004] EWHC 2626 (Ch) ............... 13-41, 18-06
Trac Time Control Ltd v Moss Plastic Parts Ltd [2004] EWHC 3298 (TCC) ..... 16-05, 16-08
Tradebe Solvent Recycling Ltd v Coussens of Bexhill Ltd [2013] EWHC 3786 (QB) ..... 16-216
Trademark Licensing Co Ltd v Punch GmbH [2012] EWCA Civ 985 ........................... 22-18
Tradewaves Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank [2017] SGHC 93 (Singapore HC) ............ 10-06
Trafigura Beheer BV v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (The MSC Amsterdam) [2007]
EWHC 944 (Comm); [2007] EWCA Civ 794; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 622 (CA) ....... 16-159
Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd [1952] 2 QB 297 (CA).......... 1-27, 5-48, 7-31
Transafrik International Ltd v Venus Corp Ltd [2008] EWHC 1721 (TCC);
(2008) 121 Con LR 78 .......................................................................... 4-161, 4-179, 8-09
Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) [2006] EWHC 3030
(Comm); [2007] EWCA Civ 901; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555 (CA); [2008]
UKHL 48; [2009] 1 AC 61 (HL) ............ 1-21, 1-55, 4-30, 4-73, 4-103, 4-116, 6-27, 6-28,
6-33, 6-49, 8-08, 14-02, 14-03, 14-06, 14-07, 14-24, 14-31,
14-44, 14-50, 14-52, 14-61, 14-63, 14-67, 14-78, 14-79,
14-121, 14-159, 14-167, 14-168, 14-174, 14-178, 15-15,
15-64, 15-84, 16-49, 16-207, 16-210, 16-234, 19-36
Transworld Land Co Ltd v J Sainsbury plc [1990] 2 EGLR 255 ................................. 16-185
Transworld Oil Ltd v North Bay Shipping Corp (The Rio Claro) [1987]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 173.................................................................................. 8-05, 14-50, 14-57
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co of Canada v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada
(UK) Ltd [2006] EWHC 2716 (Comm) .............................................................. 7-29, 9-49
Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd v ADT Fire and Security plc [2011] EWHC 1379 (TCC) ..... 15-59,
15-123, 16-10
Treml v Ernest W Gibson & Partners [1984] EGLR 162.................................... 3-54, 16-127
Trico-Folberth Ltd v Devonshire [1989] ICR 747 (CA) ................................................. 13-50
Truk (UK) Ltd v Tokmakidis GmbH [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 543 ....................... 4-220, 16-109
Try Build Ltd v Invicta Leisure Tennis Ltd (1997) 71 Con LR 140 .................................. 2-33
Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 41 ER 1143 .............................................................................. 10-02
Tullis Russell Papermakers Ltd v Inveresk plc [2010] CSOH 148.............. 2-10, 18-36, 18-46
Turner v Goldsmith [1891] 1 QB 544 (CA) ................................................................... 13-30
Turner v Superannuation & Mutual Savings Ltd [1987] 1 NZLR 218 ............................ 5-21
Turner Page Music Ltd v Torres Design Associates Ltd, 12 March 1997 ....................... 4-263
Turpin v Victoria Palace Ltd [1918] 2 KB 539 .............................................................. 18-43
2 Travel Group plc v Cardiff City Transport Services Ltd [2012] CAT 19 ..................... 23-34
Twycross v Grant (1877) 2 CPD 469 (CA) ................. 14-97, 16-205, 16-223, 16-249, 17-70
UBC Chartering Ltd v Liepaya Shipping Co Ltd (The Liepaya) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 649 ................................................................................15-44, 15-56, 16-108, 16-115
UCB Corporate Services Ltd v Clyde & Co (a firm) [2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 653 (CA) ..... 15-122
Uctkos v Mazzetta [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 209 ................................................................ 4-130
Ultraworth Ltd v General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp [2000] 2 EGLR 115 ..... 4-188
Union Discount Co Ltd v Zoller [2001] EWCA Civ 1755; [2002] 1 WLR 1517 (CA) .... 10-06,
16-160
United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [1994] AC 1 (HL) ........................................ 24-04
United Motor Finance Co v Addison & Co Ltd [1937] 1 All ER 425 (PC) ................... 3-109
United States of America Shipping Board v Laird Line Ltd [1924] AC 286 (HL) .......... 16-15
 Table of Cases lxxi

Unity Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd v Rocco Pezzano Pty Ltd (1998) 192 CLR 603
(HC of Australia)............................................................................... 3-103, 16-167, 20-04
Universal Thermosensors Ltd v Hibben [1992] 1 WLR 840 .......................................... 10-07
University of Wales v London College of Business Ltd [2016] EWHC 888 (QB) .... 18-22, 18-36
Upton Park Homes Ltd v Macdonalds [2010] PNLR 12 (Court of Session, OH) .......... 4-237
UYB Ltd v British Railways Board, 16 April 1999; 20 October 2000 (CA) ................... 18-06
Uzinterimpex JSC v Standard Bank plc [2008] EWCA Civ 819; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 456 (CA) .......................................................................................................... 16-107
Van den Hurk v R Martens & Co Ltd [1920] 1 KB 850 ................................................. 4-90
Van der Garde BV see Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd
Van Wagner UK Ltd v Brown [2005] EWHC 1505 (Ch) ............................................... 16-75
Vanda Compania Ltda of Costa Rica v Société Maritime Nationale of Paris
(The Ile Aux Moines) [1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 502 ................................................. 4-37, 6-48
Vasiliou v Hajigeorgiou [2010] EWCA Civ 1475 .........................18-18, 18-50, 18-57, 18-88
Veitch v Avery [2007] EWCA Civ 711; (2007) 115 Con LR 70 (CA) ................. 13-08, 13-32
Velmore Estates Ltd v Roseberry Homes Ltd [2005] EWHC 3061 (Ch) ...................... 16-108
Ventouris v Trevor Rex Mountain (The Italia Express) (No 2) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 281 ................................................................................................. 9-49, 19-13, 19-51
Vercoe v Rutland Fund Management Ltd [2010] EWHC 424 (Ch) .................... 10-08, 23-03
Verrall v Great Yarmouth BC [1981] QB 202 (CA) ....................................................... 19-31
Vic Mill Ltd, Re [1913] 1 Ch 465 ................................................................................... 5-40
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528 (CA)..... 6-40, 6-41,
6-49, 14-23, 14-24, 14-30, 14-58,
14-62, 14-76, 14-81, 14-163
Vinmar International Ltd v Theresa Navigation SA [2001] EWHC 497 (Comm) ......... 15-12,
15-18, 16-03
Virani Ltd v Marcel Revert y Compagnia SA [2003] EWCA Civ 1651............................ 1-68
VIS Trading Co Ltd v Nazarov [2013] EWHC 491 (QB) ................................................ 7-12
Vision Golf Ltd v Weightmans (a firm) [2005] EWHC 1675 (Ch) ................. 16-160, 16-237,
18-05, 18-06
Vitruvia Steamship Co Ltd v Ropner Shipping Co Ltd [1925] SC (HL) 1 .................... 16-218
VK Mason Construction Ltd v Bank of Nova Scotia [1985] 1 SCR 271
(SC of Canada) .......................................................................................................... 18-94
Voaden v Champion (The Baltic Surveyor and Timbuktu) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 739;
[2002] EWCA Civ 89; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 623 (CA) ...........4-137, 4-210, 15-111, 18-07
Volk v Hirstlens (NZ) Ltd [1987] 1 NZLR 385 (NZ HC) ............................................... 7-29
Vorvis v Insurance Corp of British Columbia (1989) 58 DLR (4th) 193
(SC of Canada) ............................................................................................... 19-38, 23-35
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2011] EWHC 3107 (Ch); [2012]
EWCA Civ 808; [2013] UKSC 5................................................................. 16-191, 16-194
W v Veolia Environmental Services (UK) plc [2011] EWHC 2020 (QB) .......... 16-89, 16-130,
16-137, 16-185, 16-186
W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins [1977] AC 931 (HL) ...................................................... 13-47
Waddell v Blockey (1879) 4 QBD 678 (CA) ......................................3-44, 3-51, 4-29, 17-51,
17-54, 17-58, 17-70
Wadsworth v Lydall [1981] 1 WLR 598 (CA) ................................................................. 7-11
Wagstaff v Short-horn Dairy Co (1884) Cab & El 324 ........................................ 4-67, 18-96
Walford v Miles [1991] 2 EGLR 185 (CA); [1992] 2 AC 128 (HL).................... 10-10, 13-65
Walker v Geo H Medlicott & Son (a firm) [1999] 1 All ER 685 (CA) ......................... 16-171
Walker v Northumberland CC [1995] 1 All ER 737 ..................................................... 19-81
Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19 ................................................................................... 14-156
lxxii Table of Cases

Wallace v Manchester City Council [1998] 3 EGLR 38 (CA) .......6-07, 6-70, 8-17, 8-18, 19-29,
19-32, 19-33, 19-65, 19-74, 19-76
Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd [1997] 3 SCR 70 (SC of Canada) ............... 5-61, 23-35
Wallington v Townsend [1939] 1 Ch 588 ...................................................................... 4-232
Walsh v Shanahan [2013] EWCA Civ 411 .................................................................... 23-07
Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC) .............................. 2-33, 18-22
Wapshott v Davis Donovan & Co (a firm) [1996] PNLR 361 (CA) ................... 17-49, 19-74
Ward v Cannock Chase District Council [1986] Ch 546 ......................... 4-174, 4-199, 19-19
Ward v Smith (1822) 11 Price 19 .................................................................................... 8-04
Wardle v Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank [2011] EWCA Civ 545;
[2011] IRLR 604 (CA) ................................................. 12-08, 12-10, 13-50, 13-52, 18-19
Warrington v Great-West Life Assurance Co (1996) 139 DLR (4th) 18 ........................ 19-13
Wasps Football Club Trustees v Lambert Smith Hampton Group Ltd [2004]
EWHC 938 (Comm).................................................................................................... 3-94
Waterdance Ltd v Kingston Marine Services Ltd [2014] EWHC 224 (TCC) ..... 4-234, 4-252,
16-216, 16-224
Watson Laidlaw & Co Ltd v Pott, Cassels and Williamson (1914) 1 SLT 130 (HL) ........ 5-40
Watson Norie Ltd v Shaw [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 515 (CA) .............................................. 6-08
Watts v Bell & Scott WS [2007] CSOH 108 ...............................3-101, 14-91, 18-09, 18-101
Watts v Morrow [1991] 1 WLR 1421 (CA) ..................... 3-22, 3-34, 3-37, 3-51, 3-58, 3-71,
3-75–3-77, 16-53, 17-49, 19-02, 19-04,
19-06, 19-27, 19-37, 19-73, 19-74
Watts, Watts and Co v Mitsui and Co [1917] AC 227 (HL) ................................... 1-36, 8-03
Weld-Blundell v Stephens [1920] AC 956 (HL) ................................... 15-12, 16-235, 16-241
Welford v EDF Energy Networks (LPN) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 293 .......................... 15-112
Wellesley Partners Ltd v Withers LLP [2014] EWHC 556 (Ch); [2015] EWCA Civ 1146;
[2016] Ch 529 (CA) .......................................................................... 13-102, 14-85, 18-57
Wells v Wells [1999] AC 345 (HL) .................................................................................. 1-31
Wells Fargo Bank NA v United States (1995) 33 Fed Cl 233 ......................................... 14-10
Welven Ltd v Soar Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 3240 (Comm) ........................................... 9-37
Wenham v Ella (1972) 127 CLR 454 (HC of Australia) ................................................ 4-237
Wertheim v Chicoutimi Pulp Co [1911] 1 AC 301 (HL) .......... 4-52, 4-125, 6-13, 6-19, 6-20
West v Ian Finlay & Associates [2013] EWHC 868 (TCC) ................................ 13-03, 19-76
West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326 (HL) ......................................................... 19-57
West is West Distribution Ltd v Icon Film Distribution Ltd [2015] EWHC 838
(Comm) ..................................................................................................................... 18-90
West Midlands Travel Ltd v Aviva Insurance UK Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 887 ....... 6-61, 6-63,
6-64, 6-66–6-68, 6-78
West Wales, The [1932] P 165................................................................................ 6-65, 6-79
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996]
AC 699 (HL) ............................................................................................................... 7-44
Western Trust & Savings Ltd v Cliver Travers & Co [1997] PNLR 295 (CA) ............. 16-171
Western Web Offset Printers Ltd v Independent Media Ltd, 4 October 1995 (CA) .... 5-45, 5-46
Westlake v JP Cave and Co, 14 January 1998 ..............................15-87, 15-89, 15-90, 15-99
Westwood v Secretary of State for Employment [1985] AC 20 (HL) ................ 15-91, 16-138
Whalley v PF Developments Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 306 .................................... 18-27, 18-30
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (HL) ................... 19-05
White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 (HL) ............................ 13-21, 13-79, 13-113, 21-03, 21-16,
21-20, 21-32, 21-71
White and Carter v McGregor [1962] AC 413 (HL) .......................1-01, 1-09, 16-29, 16-30,
16-32, 16-35
 Table of Cases lxxiii

White Arrow Express Ltd v Lamey’s Distribution Ltd [1995] CLC 1251;
(1995) 15 Tr LR 69 (CA).......................... 2-21, 2-35, 2-39–2-42, 2-53, 2-59, 2-61, 18-16,
18-25, 18-28, 19-65, 19-69, 19-70
Whitecap Leisure Ltd v John H Rundle Ltd [2007] EWHC 1352 (QB);
[2008] EWCA Civ 429 ................................................................................................ 4-41
Whitehead v Hibbert Pownall & Newton (a firm) [2008] EWCA Civ 285;
[2009] 1 WLR 549 (CA)................................................................................. 13-09, 17-10
Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co [2002] 1 SCR 595 (SC of Canada) ................................... 23-35
Whittaker v Unisys Australia Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 9 ......................................... 15-44, 16-111
Wigsell v School for Indigent Blind (1882) 8 QBD 357 ................................................. 4-199
Wilding v British Telecommunications plc [2002] EWCA Civ 349;
[2002] IRLR 524 (CA) ................................ 15-50, 15-51, 15-73, 15-112, 16-110, 16-111
Wilkins v William Cory & Son Ltd [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 98 ...................................... 16-231
William Aitchison v Gordon Durham & Co Ltd, 30 June 1995 (CA) .............. 17-09, 18-101
William Cory & Son v Wingate Investments (London Colney) Ltd (1980)
17 BLR 104 (CA) .................................................................................. 4-166, 7-55, 16-92
Williams v BOC Gases Ltd [2000] ICR 1181 (CA) ........................................ 16-120, 16-135
Williams v Glyn Owen & Co [2003] EWCA Civ 750 ................................................. 16-170
Williams v Reynolds (1865) 34 LJQB 221; (1865) 6 B & S 495 ...... 4-51, 4-103, 4-106, 14-168
Williams Bros v Ed T Agius Ltd [1914] AC 510 (HL) ....... 4-98, 4-101, 4-106, 4-108, 4-125,
4-126, 4-219, 4-229, 5-17
Wilson v Northampton and Banbury Junction Railway Co (1873–74)
LR 9 Ch App 279 (CA) ............................................................................................. 18-22
Wilson v Rickett, Cockerell & Co Ltd [1954] 1 QB 598 (CA) ........................................ 4-84
Wilson v United Counties Bank Ltd [1920] AC 102 (HL) .................................. 18-38, 19-11
Winstanley v Sleeman [2013] EWHC 4792 (QB) .......................................................... 18-44
Wise Group v Mitchell [2005] ICR 896 (EAT) .............................................................. 13-45
Wiseman v Virgin Atlantic Airways plc [2006] EWHC 1566 (QB).............................. 16-236
Withers v General Theatre Co Ltd [1933] 2 KB 536 (CA) ............................................. 18-41
Wood v TUI Travel plc [2017] EWCA Civ 11 ............................................................... 19-80
Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction Co Ltd [1980]
1 WLR 277 (HL) ................................................ 7-37, 19-43, 21-02, 21-28, 21-29, 21-31,
21-42, 21-54, 21-60
Woodlands Oak Ltd v Conwell [2011] EWCA Civ 254 ................................. 16-112, 16-114
Woods v Martins Bank Ltd [1959] 1 QB 255 ............................................ 3-45, 11-09, 20-02
World Beauty, The [1970] P 144 (CA).................................................................. 6-08, 15-92
Wren v Holt [1903] 1 KB 610 (CA) ................................................................................ 4-84
Wright v Dean [1948] Ch 686 ....................................................................................... 15-44
Wright v Lewis Silkin LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 1308 ........................... 10-06, 13-110, 13-117,
14-85, 14-134, 16-181, 20-29
Wroth v Tyler [1974] Ch 30 ............................................. 16-27, 16-89, 16-95, 17-36, 17-37
Wrotham Park Estates Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798 ......... 1-16, 1-18, 2-44,
10-01, 10-03, 22-01–22-03, 22-09
WWF–World Wide Fund for Nature v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment
Inc [2007] EWCA Civ 286; [2008] 1 WLR 445 (CA) ......................... 10-05, 22-03, 22-06,
22-09, 22-10, 22-15, 22-23, 23-11
Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB);
[2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 526 ................................. 3-114, 18-18, 18-21, 18-22, 18-36, 18-67,
18-70, 18-73, 18-76
Yapp v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2013] EWHC 1098 (QB);
[2013] IRLR 616 ..................................................................................... 5-59, 5-60, 19-81
lxxiv Table of Cases

Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 37; [2010] QB 1 (CA)......... 4-261,
19-09
Yeoman Credit Ltd v Waragowski [1961] 1 WLR 1124 (CA) .............................. 5-32, 13-44
Yetton v Eastwoods Froy Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 104 ....................................................... 16-111
Yianni v Edwin Evans & Sons [1982] QB 438 .............................................................. 13-20
Yonge v Toynbee [1910] 1 KB 215 (CA) ......................................................................... 9-04
York, The [1929] P 178 (CA) ...............................................16-214, 16-215, 16-224, 16-228
Yorkshireman, The (1826) 2 Hagg Adm 30n .................................................................. 6-08
Youell v Bland Welch & Co Ltd (The Superhulls Cover Case) (No 2) [1990]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 423.....................................................................15-53, 15-56, 15-57, 16-06
Zabihi v Janzemini [2009] EWCA Civ 851 ........................................................ 18-20, 18-22
Zakrzewski v Chas J Odhams & Sons [1981] 2 EGLR 15 ................4-37, 4-39, 4-78, 16-94,
17-15, 17-32
Zeneca Ltd v King Sturges & Co, 19 September 1996 ................................ 3-32, 3-74, 17-64
Zheng v Cai (2009) 239 CLR 446 (HC of Australia) ..................................... 16-121, 16-123
Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (The Kildare) [2010]
EWHC 903 (Comm); [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 360 ............................1-31, 5-31, 5-52, 13-74,
15-12, 15-15, 15-64, 16-78
Zomojo Pty Ltd v Hurd (No 4) [2014] FCA 441 (FC of Australia);
[2015] FCAFC 147 (FC of Australia) ................................................................. 2-07, 2-20
Zurich Insurance Co plc v Hayward [2016] UKSC 48; [2016] 3 WLR 637 (SC) ........... 13-18
Zwebner v Mortgage Corp Ltd [1998] PNLR 769 (CA) ............................................. 15-122
 Table of Legislation
National

Vereinigtes Königreich

Administration of Justice Act 1970

s 44A ........................................................................................................................... 1-33
Administration of Justice Act 1982
s 8............................................................................................................................ 16-125
Arbitration Act 1996
s 49.............................................................................................................................. 7-43
s 49(3) ......................................................................................................................... 7-44
s 49(3)(b) ..................................................................................................................... 7-44
Bills of Exchange Act 1882
s 57..................................................................................................................... 7-43, 9-53
Bills of Lading Act 1855..................................................................................... 21-07, 21-23
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 .............................................................................. 21-23
s 2(4) .............................................................................................................. 21-09, 21-25
Chancery Amendment Act 1858 ................................................................................... 4-266
s 2................................................................................................................................ 1-15
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 .............................................................. 3-48, 16-169
s 1.............................................................................................................................. 24-12
s 1(1) ......................................................................................................................... 24-13
s 1(4) ......................................................................................................................... 24-12
s 2.............................................................................................................................. 24-14
s 2(1) ....................................................................................................................... 14-188
s 2(2) ......................................................................................................................... 24-14
s 3................................................................................................................... 24-07, 24-11
s 4................................................................................................................... 24-06, 24-11
s 6(1) ......................................................................................................................... 24-13
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132)
r 16.3(7) .................................................................................................................. 18-265
r 16.4(2) ...................................................................................................................... 7-44
r 25.6........................................................................................................................... 1-29
r 27............................................................................................................................ 20-25
Pt 36 ............................................................................................................................ 7-51
r 36.17(4)(a) ................................................................................................................ 7-51
r 36.17(6) .................................................................................................................... 7-51
r 36.29(4)(a) ................................................................................................................ 7-51
r 41.............................................................................................................................. 1-28
r 41.4........................................................................................................................... 1-29
r 44.3......................................................................................................................... 20-25
r 44.4......................................................................................................................... 20-25
rr 45–46 ......................................................................................................... 20-24, 20-25
r 52.21(2)(a) ................................................................................................................ 1-32
lxxvi Table of Legislation

Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/3053) ................... 13-58
reg 17 .......................................................................................................................... 5-54
Companies Act 1985
s 320........................................................................................................................ 14-153
Consumer Rights Act 2015 ......................................................................... 4-22, 4-54, 4-267
ss 19–24 ...................................................................................................................... 4-54
s 23............................................................................................................................ 4-190
s 24............................................................................................................................ 4-267
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 .................................................... 21-01, 21-67
s 1.............................................................................................................................. 21-19
s 1(5) ......................................................................................................................... 21-67
s 5.............................................................................................................................. 21-70
County Courts Act 1984
s 51.............................................................................................................................. 1-28
s 69..................................................................................................................... 7-40, 7-43
s 69(1), (3) ................................................................................................................... 7-44
s 69(4) ......................................................................................................................... 7-45
Courts Act 2003.............................................................................................................. 1-29
Damages Act 1996 .......................................................................................................... 1-29
Defective Premises Act 1972 ......................................................................................... 21-22
Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income
Support) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2349).............................................................. 16-138
Employment Rights Act 1996 ......................................................................................... 5-59
s 86............................................................................................................................ 13-45
ss 119–122 ................................................................................................................ 13-47
s 122(2) ........................................................................................................ 13-47, 15-134
s 123.......................................................................................................................... 13-47
s 123(1), (4) ............................................................................................................... 13-47
s 123(6) ........................................................................................... 13-47, 15-117, 15-134
s 124.......................................................................................................................... 13-47
s 124A ....................................................................................................................... 13-47
Pt XIV, Ch II.............................................................................................................. 13-47
Employment Tribunals Act 1996
ss 16–17 .................................................................................................................. 16-138
Enterprise Act 2016
s 28.............................................................................................................................. 9-50
s 30.............................................................................................................................. 9-50
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
s 90A ......................................................................................................................... 13-20
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
s 401........................................................................................................................ 13-126
Insurance Act 2015
s 13A ........................................................................................................................... 9-50
Judgment Debts (Rate of Interest) Order 1993 (SI 1993/564) ......................................... 7-40
Judgments Act 1838 ........................................................................................................ 1-33
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927
s 18(1) ...................................................................................... 2-05, 4-185–4-188, 16-216
Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 .................................................. 7-53
s 5................................................................................................................................ 7-53
ss 7–10 ........................................................................................................................ 7-53
 Table of Legislation lxxvii

Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Rate of Interest) (No 3) Order 2002

(SI 2002/1675)............................................................................................................. 7-53
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
s 1.................................................................................................. 15-114, 15-116, 15-128
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970
s 1.............................................................................................................................. 19-09
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
s 3.............................................................................................................................. 4-268
Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948
s 2(4) ....................................................................................................................... 16-139
Limitation Act 1980
s 5A ............................................................................................................................. 9-50
Misrepresentation Act 1967
s 2(1) ........................................................................................................................... 3-01
Sale of Goods Act 1893................................................................................................... 1-12
Sale of Goods Act 1979.......................................................... 1-20, 4-34, 9-01, 17-15, 17-24
s 5A ............................................................................................................................. 4-54
s 12(2)(b) ..................................................................................................................... 6-47
s 48A .............................................................................................................. 4-190, 4-267
s 48B ......................................................................................................................... 4-190
s 50..................................................................................................................... 1-20, 9-06
(2) ............................................................................................................................ 5-08
(3) ...............................................................................................1-20, 5-06, 5-08, 15-74
s 51..................................................................................................................... 1-20, 4-22
(2) ....................................................................................4-23, 4-25–4-27, 4-133, 4-215
(3) .................... 1-20, 4-24–4-27, 4-29, 4-119, 4-120, 4-133, 4-134, 4-230, 5-07, 15-76
s 53............................................................................................................ 1-20, 4-22, 4-32
(2) ...............................................................................................4-23, 4-32, 4-87, 4-215
(3) ........... 1-20, 4-24, 4-32, 4-33, 4-72, 4-119–4-121, 4-133, 4-134, 5-07, 15-74, 15-76
s 54............................................................................................................ 1-20, 4-23, 5-06
s 62(2) ......................................................................................................................... 4-23
Senior Courts Act 1981
s 31.............................................................................................................................. 1-29
s 31A ........................................................................................................................... 1-28
s 35A ..................................................................................................... 7-40, 7-43, 13-129
s 35A(1), (3) ................................................................................................................ 7-44
s 35A(4)....................................................................................................................... 7-45
s 50.............................................................................................................................. 1-15
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997........................................................... 16-138
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
Pt 1 .............................................................................................................................. 9-01
Supreme Court Act 1981 see Senior Courts Act 1981
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ..................................................................................... 1-22
Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
(SI 1999/2083) 1-22

Australien

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

s 5D ......................................................................................................................... 14-156
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Act 2000 (NSW) ..................... 15-116
lxxviii Table of Legislation

Vereinigte Staaten

Restatement (Second) of Contracts

§ 346(2)..................................................................................................................... 23-01
§ 349 ......................................................................................................................... 18-76
§ 350(1)..................................................................................................................... 15-50
§ 351 cmt a .................................................................................................... 14-10, 14-44
§ 352 ......................................................................................................................... 23-28
§ 352 cmt a ............................................................................................................... 18-35
Securities Exchange Act 1974
r 10-5(b) .................................................................................................................... 16-54
Uniform Commercial Code
s 2-715 cmt 2.................................................................................................. 14-10, 14-44
s 709(1)(b) ................................................................................................................. 16-37

European Union

EC Treaty
Art 81 ........................................................................................................................ 23-03
 Part I

Introduction
 1
A Brief Introduction to the
Contract Damages Award
About the award of damages; an introduction to the basic principles of damages and
the theory behind the remedy; damages awards in foreign currencies.

1. Summary.................................................................................................................. 1-01
2. The Damages Remedy.............................................................................................. 1-03
3. The Principles of Compensation............................................................................... 1-35
4. The Theory of Contract Damages ............................................................................ 1-51
5. The Currency of the Award ...................................................................................... 1-59

1. SUMMARY

T
HIS BOOK DEALS with what is probably the principal remedy granted by 1-01
courts for breach of contract, and certainly the most commonly disputed,
the award of damages.1 This encompasses all pecuniary awards that are not
made pursuant to an action for an agreed sum/action for a debt, which is a form of
specific relief ordering performance of a promise to pay money, and is not covered
by this book.2
The vast majority of contract damages awards are compensatory, and so the 1-02
majority of this book is about how that compensation is calculated. Contract damages
awards may also be made on a restitutionary, nominal or punitive/exemplary basis,
and these bases are also discussed below in chapter 23.3

1 Damages for torts and breaches of equitable obligations (especially trust, fiduciary duty and confi-

dence) are not considered here, although the principles applicable to such claims and contract claims are
largely the same and many tort and equity cases are considered here where useful.
2 However, the quasi-mitigation aspects of the action for an agreed sum from White and Carter

v McGregor [1962] AC 413 (HL) are discussed below at paras 16-29 and following.
3 Restitutionary awards for breach of contract—restitutionary damages—are covered by this book,

but restitutionary awards made under the law of unjust enrichment, albeit sometimes after the contract
has been terminated for repudiatory breach, are not damages and not covered by this book.
 4 A Brief Introduction to the Contract Damages Award

2. THE DAMAGES REMEDY

A. Damages and Other Remedies

(i) Damages Are a Remedy for Breach

1-03 The contract damages award is a remedy for breach of contract. If there has been
no breach of contract there can be no award of contract damages. The question of
breach, however, falls outside the scope of this work.

(ii) Breach of Contract Is a Wrong per se

1-04 Breach of contract is actionable per se. Unlike the tort of negligence, for example,
the cause of action for breach of contract does not require any damage to have been
suffered. Breach alone is enough. This means that limitation starts to run against a
contract claim (including for breach of a contractual duty of care) on the date of
breach (the date on which the cause of action arises), whereas on a tortious negli-
gence claim it runs from the date of damage (the date on which that cause of action
arises).
1-05 For no particularly good reason, the remedy available for breach of contract when
no damage has been suffered (and when restitutionary damages and punitive dam-
ages are also not available) is not a declaration of breach, but rather an award of
damages: ‘nominal damages’. Such an award is, as its name indicates, not compen-
satory, and is not subject to any of the damages principles discussed in this book.
Its purpose and effect is very similar to that of a declaration. The nominal damages
award is briefly discussed below at paragraphs 23-01 and following.

(iii) Damages Are the Principal Remedy for Breach of Contract

1-06 In English law, damages are the primary remedy for breach of contract.
1-07 Most of the ‘specific’ remedies of specific performance, the injunction and the action
for an agreed sum, so called because they result in delivery of the very thing (specie)
that was promised, play second fiddle to the award of contract damages. This is
most apparent in the case of specific performance, which is only awarded where the
claimant is able to demonstrate that damages would be inadequate.4 Awards of spe-
cific performance are rare, particularly in commercial cases. Prohibitory injunctions
are a little more common, but of necessity primarily only arise where the promise is
a negative one.5

(iv) The Action for an Agreed Sum

1-08 Awards of the specific remedy of an agreed sum are far more common than spe-
cific performance, although probably rarer than the award of compensation, if only

4 Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 (HL).

5 Particular types of negative obligation are discussed below in ch 10.
 The Damages Remedy 5

because the action for an agreed sum is only available where there is a promise to
pay a sum of money, whereas damages are available for breach of any contractual
obligation.6
Because the award of a debt/agreed sum is an award of money, it can be confused 1-09
with damages, the other award of money for breach. The differences between the
two are basic. The agreed sum is simply the award of the sum promised in the obli-
gation. There is no measurement of loss or anything else, no rules of mitigation,7
remoteness or causation. Accordingly, it will usually be a preferable remedy for the
claimant, where available. Thus, for example, where there are periodic payments
due to the claimant under a contract and the claimant is terminated, the claim-
ant will usually claim under the action for an agreed sum for historic payments
(plus interest), but will have to claim damages in respect of future payments (the
compensatory measure of which requires discounting to allow for the acceleration
in receipt, quite apart from the rules of mitigation and causation).
Accordingly, once it is established that the claimant is entitled to an award of an 1-10
agreed sum, there are few or no legal principles that need to be considered. This is in
sharp contrast with the claim for damages.

B. Sources of the Remedy

(i) Common Law

Contract damages are a common law remedy, both in the sense of being primarily a 1-11
creature of case law rather than statute, and in the sense of being a creature of the
Common Law rather than Equity.8
Lord Diplock, in the House of Lords decision in Photo Production Ltd v Securicor 1-12
Transport Ltd, explained the mechanism by which the damages award arises.9
As he put it,
breaches of primary obligations give rise to substituted or secondary obligations on the part
of the party in default … These secondary obligations of the contract breaker … arise by
implication of law—generally common law, but sometimes statute, as in the case of codi-
fying statutes passed at the turn of the century, notably the Sale of Goods Act 1893. The
contract, however, is just as much the source of secondary obligations as it is of primary
obligations; and like primary obligations that are implied by law, secondary obligations too
can be modified by agreement between the parties … Every failure to perform a primary
obligation is a breach of contract. The secondary obligation on the part of the contract
breaker to which it gives rise by implication of the common law is to pay monetary com-
pensation to the other party for the loss sustained by him in consequence of the breach.10

6 For further discussion of the action for an agreed sum see below in paras 16-29 and following.
7 Subject to the rule from White and Carter v McGregor [1962] AC 413 (HL), discussed below at
paras 16-29 and following.
8 Equity’s version of damages is known as ‘equitable compensation’.
9 Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 (HL) 848 to 889. This followed his

earlier analysis in Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd [1973] AC 331 (HL) 350.
10 ibid 848 to 849. See also C Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (The Heron II) [1966] 2 QB 695 (CA) 730 to

731 (Diplock LJ).

 6 A Brief Introduction to the Contract Damages Award

This makes clear the basic features of the award: first the obligation to pay damages
arises by operation of law and not by any promise in the contract, but, second, the
obligation to pay damages can be modified by agreement. The latter point is dis-
cussed below at paragraphs 1-21 and following.

(ii) The Common Law and Damages on Termination

1-13 The right to damages that arises upon termination for repudiatory breach is slightly
different from the right that arises upon breach (repudiatory or otherwise) without
termination. That right to damages upon termination includes not merely the ‘gen-
eral secondary obligation’ to pay damages compensating for the breach that has
occurred,11 but also
there is substituted by implication of law for the primary obligations of the party in default
which remain unperformed a secondary obligation to pay monetary compensation to the
other party for the loss sustained by him in consequence of their non-performance in the
future.12
1-14 Lord Diplock called this the ‘anticipatory secondary obligation’, and confirmed
that this too could be modified by express clauses just like the ‘general secondary
obligation’.13 This obligation arises when the primary obligations come to an end
on termination. It means that a claim for damages following repudiatory breach is
in effect a claim for breach not only of the obligation already breached, but also for
breach of all future obligations the defendant had (which are ‘anticipated’ by the
award). The net effect of this (given the savings the claimant makes by being excused
its own future obligations) is a claim against the defendant for loss sustained by the
coming to an end and so non-performance of the entire remainder of the contract,
eg a claim for the net lost profit on the entire contract.

(iii) Damages in Lieu of Specific Performance (Lord Cairns’ Act)

1-15 Section 2 of the Chancery Amendment Act 1858, passed before the Courts of Law
and Courts of Equity (Chancery) were fused by the Judicature Acts, provides for the
Courts of Chancery to make an award of damages in lieu of specific performance ‘in
addition to or in substitution for … specific performance, and such damages may be
assessed in such manner as the court shall direct’. Despite repeal of the 1858 Act, the
jurisdiction of the court to award such damages continued,14 and is now found in
section 50 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.15

11Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 (HL) 848 to 849.
12ibid.
13ibid.
14 Leeds Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd v Slack [1924] AC 851 (HL).
15 s 50 reads: ‘Where the Court of Appeal or the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an applica-

tion for an injunction or specific performance, it may award damages in addition to, or in substitution for,
an injunction or specific performance’. Originally called the Supreme Court Act 1981.
 The Damages Remedy 7

The House of Lords confirmed in Johnson v Agnew,16 however, that the measure of 1-16
damages in lieu of specific performance is the same as at common law.17 This is not
always appreciated, and some cases use the fact of the award being in place of spe-
cific performance to seek to justify a measure believed by the judge to be not wholly
based on compensation and loss in the way that ordinary contract damages are.18
The possible disparity arises because specific performance will often deliver the 1-17
claimant into a different position than damages will (even allowing for the fact that
damages only give the monetary equivalent of performance). For example, specific
performance of an obligation to deliver property always gives, at trial, the property
itself. Damages for breach of the same obligation may not give the value of the prop-
erty at trial (for example where the claimant could have been expected to obtain a
replacement at an earlier date); or may require the claimant to give credit for costs
the claimant would have incurred but for the breach but did not, or benefits the
claimant received as a result of the breach.19
A particular measure of contract damages, so-called Wrotham Park or hypothetical 1-18
bargain damages, grew up out of the Lord Cairns’ Act power although it is now seen
as part of the general common law of contract and not restricted to the situation
where specific performance or an injunction has been sought.20
Although not a question of the measure of damages, one difference between the two 1-19
awards may be that damages in lieu of specific performance are technically available
when no breach has occurred but specific performance is available.21 Damages in
lieu may also be awarded in respect of future wrongs, whereas ordinary contract
damages may not.22

(iv) The Sale of Goods Act 1979

As is discussed further below,23 the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (in sections 50, 51 1-20
and 53) provides statutory actions enabling the buyer or seller to claim damages.

16 Johnson v Agnew [1980] 1 AC 367 (HL).

17 ibid 400 (Lord Wilberforce). See also Attorney General v Blake [2001] AC 268 (HL) 281 (Lord
Nicholls).
18 For example in Semelhago v Paramadevan [1996] 2 SCR 415 (SC of Canada) the Supreme Court

of Canada seems to rely both on the flexibility of the common law date of assessment rule (which is
legitimate) and the need to ensure that damages are a ‘true substitute for’ and ‘true equivalent of specific
performance’ (which is illegitimate), at paras 16 and 19 (Sopinka J). Likewise Lunn Poly Ltd v Liverpool
& Lancashire Properties Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 430 at paras 21 to 24 (Neuberger LJ), where the Court
of Appeal took the view that a partial account of profits would be available as damages in lieu (although
did not award one) and that additional flexibility arose when applying the Wrotham Park measure as
damages in lieu.
19 Thus in Semelhago v Paramadevan, ibid, such benefits were ignored, and the Supreme Court only

reluctantly allowed the deduction of costs.

20 See below at para 22-09.
21 Oakacre Ltd v Claire Cleaners (Holdings) Ltd [1982] Ch 197 (Davies QC).
22 See the comments of Millett LJ in Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269 (CA) 290 to 291 and of Lord

Nicholls in Attorney General v Blake [2001] AC 268 (HL) 281.

23 See chs 4 and 5.
 8 A Brief Introduction to the Contract Damages Award

These sections lay down the measure of damages but do so in terms (‘estimated loss
directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the breach’)
that do no more than record the common law measure.24 As discussed below,25 the
only real difference between the Sale of Goods Act 1979 damages remedy and the
common law remedy is that in certain circumstances the 1979 Act provides for a
rebuttable presumption that the award is to be measured by reference to the market
at the date of delivery,26 whereas there is no such legal presumption at common law
(although in practice the result will be the same).

(v) The Effect of the Contract on the Damages Award

1-21 As explained above at paragraphs 1-11 to 1-12, although the obligation to pay
damages does not arise by agreement, it can be modified and affected by agreement.
Indeed, the parties’ agreement affects the measure of damages in the following ways:
— First, the parties may by an exclusion or limitation clause or similar delineate
the scope of the defendant’s responsibility, for example excluding liability for
lost profits, or restricting liability for lost profits to a certain sum.
— Secondly, the parties may impliedly allocate responsibility for certain conse-
quences of breach. A party is only liable for types of loss for which the contract-
breaker impliedly accepted responsibility.27
— Thirdly, the parties may set down by a figure or formula the amount of damages
payable upon a certain breach, by a liquidated damages clause.
— Fourthly, the parties may contractually agree a certain factual or legal matter
that impacts on damages. Thus they may agree that a party has not relied on
certain advice or information, and such a non-reliance clause may estop the
parties from alleging reliance.28 Conversely the parties may agree (warrant) that
there has been reliance, which would prevent the need for it to be proven.
1-22 The parties are free to do the above, subject to the common law doctrine of penal-
ties (which governs whether liquidated damages clauses are enforceable), and the
statutory provisions in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and other consumer legislation.29
1-23 Only the second of the above list of four is covered by this book. The others are
questions of express contract terms and not of damages rules.

24 And s 54 expressly preserves the right to recover interest or special damages where ordinarily recov-

erable ‘by law’.

25 See paras 4-22 and following and 5-06 and following.
26 In sub-ss 50(3), 51(3) and 53(3).
27 Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) [2009] AC 61 (HL). This is the

modern formulation of the rule of remoteness, which is discussed below in ch 14.

28 This is the doctrine developed in Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking

Group Ltd [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 511 (CA) and Springwell Navigation Corp v JP Morgan Chase Bank
[2010] EWCA Civ 122.
29 There is no longer a common law doctrine of fundamental breach preventing a certain type of

exclusion clause. This was abolished by Suisse Atlantique Société d’Armement Maritime SA v NV
Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361 (HL) and Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport
Ltd [1980] AC 827 (HL).
 The Damages Remedy 9

C. The Nature of the Damages Award

(i) No Obligation to Pay Damages Prior to Judgment

Prior to judgment, there is no legal obligation to pay damages.30 The payment of 1-24
damages prior to judgment is no defence to a claim for damages,31 and damages are
not recoverable for the non-payment of damages.32

(ii) Assessment once and for all at Trial

Damages for all loss caused by a single breach must be recovered once and for all 1-25
at the trial of that cause of action.33 Where events have not yet happened, the court
will very rarely adopt a policy of waiting and seeing or of requiring the claimant to
come back to court when it has been proven that (eg) the claimant has not died in
the time a contract of employment was due to run.34 As Schiemann LJ has observed,
in many cases judgment will be before the wrongful act ceases to have a deleterious effect on
the plaintiff. In those cases, the court has to look into the future and award a figure which
includes the value as at the time of judgment of best estimates of future loss or damage. The
putting of a present figure on future loss, which exercise will often involve making judg-
ments as to possible future events rather than waiting to see what happens, is the price that
has to be paid for early finality in litigation and certainty for the parties.35
Nevertheless, the court’s case management powers do allow the splitting of a trial 1-26
into two trials, one of liability and another of quantum, which is common. More
rarely, however, these powers are exercised to allow the court to split up quantum
into different trials or to defer an award in relation to a particular head of loss. In
Deeny v Gooda Walker (No 3),36 Phillips J agreed to award damages for past losses

30 Despite the suggestion by Lord Diplock that the obligation arises immediately: see above at

para 1-12. This is explored by S Smith, ‘The Law of Damages: Rules for Citizens or Rules for Courts?’ in
D Saidov and R Cunnington (eds), Contract Damages: Domestic and International Perspectives (Oxford,
Hart Publishing, 2008) and ‘Duties, Liabilities and Damages’ (2011–12) 125 Harvard L Rev 1727.
31 Ayton v RSM Bentley Jennison [2016] 1 WLR 1281 (CA).
32 President of India v Lips Maritime Corp [1988] 1 AC 395 (HL).
33 Rowntree & Sons Ltd v Allen & Sons (Poplar) Ltd (1935) 41 Com Cas 90; Patel v Hooper &

Jackson [1999] 1 WLR 1792 (CA) 1800 (Nourse LJ). The position is different where there are continu-
ing breaches of an obligation in a contract that has not been terminated. The concept of the continuing
breach of contract is discussed in National Coal Board v Galley [1958] 1 WLR 16 (CA) 26, and is of
importance where limitation periods are being applied.
34 Richardson v Mellish (1824) 2 Bing 229, 130 ER 294.
35 Kennedy v KB Van Emden & Co [1997] 2 EGLR 137 (CA) 141. This is a problem the law of

personal injury awards has long since reconciled itself to. See, eg, Lord Lloyd in Page v Sheerness Steel
plc [1999] 1 AC 345 (HL) 363 to 364: ‘It is of the nature of a lump sum payment that it may, in respect
of future pecuniary loss, prove to be either too little or too much. So far as the multiplier is concerned,
the plaintiff may die the next day, or he may live beyond his normal expectation of life. So far as the
multiplicand is concerned, the cost of future care may exceed everyone’s best estimate. Or a new cure or
less expensive form of treatment may be discovered. But these uncertainties do not affect the basic prin-
ciple’. In relation to quantifying damages as to future losses, see further paras 12-04 and following and
paras 13-120 and following below.
36 Deeny v Gooda Walker (No 3) [1995] 1 WLR 1206 (Phillips J). See also Molton Street Capital LLP

v Shooters Hill Capital Partners LLP [2015] EWHC 3419 (Comm) at para 164 (Popplewell J).
 10 A Brief Introduction to the Contract Damages Award

to Lloyd’s names suing their managing agents for negligence, but to defer adjudica-
tion as to the future losses (the claims the claimants would face from third parties
but had not yet faced) to another day. The reasons given were that the third party
loss was uncertain, and there was a risk that the recovery would be dissipated before
the third party claims were brought. The judge did reaffirm, however, that: ‘The
desirability of bringing an end to litigation will normally make it appropriate for the
court to make a single award of damages which includes the best assessment possible
of future loss’.
1-27 Where (as in Deeny) the loss consists of future liability to third parties, the court
may seek to quantify the loss as best it can.37 Alternatively, and rather than guess-
ing the amount of the liability, the court may grant an indemnity, which provides
that the claimant is entitled to reimbursement from the defendant only if, when and
to the extent that the claimant has to make payment to third parties38 or is found
to have suffered the relevant loss.39 Such an indemnity will only be awarded where
there is a third party claim that has been formulated by the third party.40
1-28 Such a deferral of assessment of future losses is more common in personal injury
cases, where it is uncertain whether a disease or deterioration will occur in the
future, in which case an award of ‘provisional damages’ may be made with ‘further
damages’ awarded later.41 It is also an option, rarely exercised, in cases where there
was insufficient evidence at trial to prove a particular head of loss.42

(iii) Single Lump Sum

1-29 The award of damages must be a single lump sum.43 (There is an exception in
personal injury cases, where it is possible to order interim payments,44 and also
periodical payments into the future, the latter designed to avoid the problem of a
claimant imprudently prematurely spending a lump sum that was designed to com-
pensate for an income long into the future).45

37 Pennant Hills Restaurants Pty Ltd v Barrell Insurances Pty Ltd (1981) 55 ALJR 258 (HC of

Australia); Total Liban SA v Vitol Energy SA [2001] QB 643 (Gross QC).

38 Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd [1952] 2 QB 297 (CA) 303 and 307; Markel

International Insurance v Surety Guarantee Consultants [2008] EWHC 3087 at para 8 (Teare J). See also
the discussion in Deeny v Gooda Walker (No 3) [1995] 1 WLR 1206 (Phillips J).
39 The Board of Trustees of National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside v AEW Architects and

Designers Ltd [2013] EWHC 2403 (TCC) at para 115 (Akenhead J); Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE
v Western Trading Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1003 (CA) at paras 77 and 95 to 98.
40 Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd [1952] 2 QB 297 (CA) 303; Molton Street Capital

LLP v Shooters Hill Capital Partners LLP [2015] EWHC 3419 (Comm) at para 164 (Popplewell J).
41 r 41 of the Civil Procedure Rules, implementing s 31A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and s 51 of

the County Courts Act 1984.

42 The Board of Trustees of National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside v AEW Architects and

Designers Ltd [2013] EWHC 2403 (TCC) at para 115 (Akenhead J).
43 Fournier v Canadian National Rly [1927] AC 167 (PC).
44 r 25.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, giving effect to s 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
45 rr 41.4 and following of the Civil Procedure Rules, giving effect to the Damages Act 1996 as

amended by the Courts Act 2003.

 The Damages Remedy 11

(iv) Unconditional

An award of damages must be unconditional. Thus the court cannot award damages 1-30
on the condition that the claimant transfer securities to the defendant,46 or order
that part of the damages are not to be paid if the claimant elects to adopt an endow-
ment policy.47

(v) Accelerated Receipt

One consequence of an award covering losses not yet suffered is that the claim- 1-31
ant is being compensated at an earlier time than it will suffer the loss (ie an earlier
time than it would have received the future benefit or will suffer the future harm).
In the opposite situation of pre-trial losses, the court awards interest on damages
to allow for the time between suffering the loss and the award. Conversely, where
damages are awarded for post-trial (ie future) losses, it is often necessary to discount
the award to allow for accelerated receipt, ie to allow for the benefit the claimant
gets by receiving the money early and being able to use it (such as to earn interest)
for the intervening breach, whereas but for the breach it would have only received
the benefit or suffered the loss later.48 This reduction for accelerated receipt should
allow for two elements: the first is the interest that the claimant will be able to earn
on the money during the intervening period (which points towards a discount on the
sum), and the second is the inflation that the money will be subject to in the inter-
vening period, reducing its buying power (which also points towards a decrease in
the sum).49

(vi) Appeals

The presumption is that on appeal a court will not admit evidence that was not 1-32
before the first instance court.50 This general practice preserves finality of the trial,
and should not be departed from merely where future events that were uncertain at
trial have become more certain or have taken place.51

46 Banbury v Bank of Montreal [1918] AC 626 (HL).

47 Patel v Hooper & Jackson [1999] 1 WLR 1792 (CA).
48 eg Interoffice Telephones Ltd v Robert Freeman Co Ltd [1958] 1 QB 190 (CA); Robophone

Facilities Ltd v Blank [1966] 1 WLR 1428 (CA); Lavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd [1967] 1 QB 278
(CA) 291; Pennant Hills Restaurants Pty Ltd v Barrell Insurances Pty Ltd (1981) 55 ALJR 258 (HC of
Australia); Pugh v Cantor Fitzgerald International Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 307 at para 3; Seatbooker
Sales Ltd v Southend United Football Club Ltd [2008] EWHC 157 (QB) at para 116 (Seymour QC);
Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (The Kildare) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 360 at
para 73 (Steel J).
49 In personal injury cases, awards of future loss of earnings are made on the basis of a lump sum that

can be invested in a low-risk way to provide for periodical payments equivalent to the earnings lost, and
this will usually be by assuming an investment in index-linked government securities (rather than equi-
ties), as these automatically deal with inflation as they are linked to the retail price index: Wells v Wells
[1999] AC 345 (HL); Patel v Beenessreesingh [2012] UKPC 18 (PC).
50 r 52.21(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
51 Mulholland v Mitchell [1971] AC 666 (HL).
 12 A Brief Introduction to the Contract Damages Award

(vii) After Judgment

1-33 Once judgment has been given, the all or nothing nature of civil litigation means that
no further damages can be claimed from the same breach. The cause of action is lost,
or merged into the judgment, which is calculated to include all damages (including
interest) as if payment is made at the date of judgment. Thereafter, any late payment
must be compensated for by interest at the judgment rate (arising under the obliga-
tion to pay interest on a judgment), if at all.52

(viii) Tax

1-34 Usually damages will be taxed as income received by an individual or corporation.

As explained below, the basic rule is that where it makes a difference the law will
adjust the damages award to allow both for the tax that the claimant has avoided
because of the breach and the tax the claimant will have to pay on the damages
award, although where the tax is identical in both cases no adjustment needs to be
made as the two effectively cancel each other out.53

3. THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPENSATION

A. Compensation and the ‘But For’ Test

1-35 The basic measure of contract damages is as set out by Baron Parke in Robinson
v Harman in 1848:54
[W]here a party sustains loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can
do it to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been
performed.
1-36 This dictum has been cited and approved countless times.55 For a useful modern
reformulation, the reader is directed to article 9:502 of the Principles of European
Law:
The general measure of damages is such sum as will put the aggrieved party as nearly as
possible into the position in which it would have been if the contract had been duly per-
formed. Such damages cover the loss which the aggrieved party has suffered and the gain
of which it has been deprived.

52 The right to post-judgment interest arises under the Judgments Act 1838 only; it is not available

at common law: Chubb v Dean, 24 April 2013 (Cooke J). Contractual interest may be available post-
judgment: Standard Chartered Bank v Ceylon Petroleum Corp [2011] EWHC 2094 (Comm) at para 12
(Hamblen J). Where a judgment is in a foreign currency, the rate of judgment interest is at the court’s
discretion under section 44A of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (see Standard Chartered Bank
v Ceylon Petroleum Corp [2011] EWHC 2094 (Comm) at paras 16 to 18 (Hamblen J)).
53 See below paras 13-126 and following.
54 Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850.
55 For examples taken only from House of Lords decisions see Bain v Fothergill (1874) LR 7 HL 158 (HL)

85 (Lord Chelmsford); Watts, Watts and Co v Mitsui and Co [1917] AC 227 (HL) 241 (Lord Dunedin);
C Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (The Heron II) [1969] 1 AC 350 (HL) 413 (Lord Pearce); Swingcastle Ltd
 The Principles of Compensation 13

(i) Compensatory

The key feature of the damages award is that it is compensatory. As Lord Nicholls 1-37
observed, ‘Leaving aside the anomalous exception of punitive damages, damages are
compensatory. That is axiomatic’.56 The aim of the award is not to deter or punish,
nor to strip the defendant of any gain (which would be a restitutionary award), but
rather to measure the loss to the claimant, that loss being the difference between the
situation the claimant is in and that it would have been in.

(ii) The ‘But For’ Test

A crucial built-in feature of the damages award is the requirement of factual causa- 1-38
tion. Only if the claimant would not have suffered a detriment or achieved a gain
‘but for’ the breach (which is in Latinate form the sine qua non test) is the loss recov-
erable, as is inherent in Parke B’s test that the situation to be measured is that ‘as if
the contract had been performed’.

(iii) The ‘Expectation’ Measure (and the Lack of an Independent ‘Reliance’

Measure)

This award is often called the ‘expectation’ measure (mainly by academic commen- 1-39
tators) because the promisee is entitled to be put by an award of damages in the
same position as it ‘expected’ to be in if the promisor had performed the contract.57
The award is in this respect forward-looking. Thus, because of the damages award,
a promise takes effect as a guarantee of the position the promisee will be in if the
promise is performed: the promisor will either put the promisee in that position by
performing (or being made to perform), or will do so by being made to pay damages.
The promisee can therefore build on that promise in planning its affairs.
Traditionally the expectation measure has been contrasted with the ‘reliance’ or tort 1-40
measure. This is often said to be a separate measure of loss based on the claimant’s
expenditure rather than the expectation principle.58 In truth such thinking is unhelp-
ful. The basic principle is as stated by Parke B in Robinson v Harman. Where but for
the breach the claimant would not have entered into a transaction, the claimant can

v Alastair Gibson [1991] 2 AC 223 (HL) 237 (Lord Lowry); Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd
v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 (HL) 355 (Lord Jauncey); Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown
Ltd [2001] 1 AC 518, 562 (Lord Jauncey); Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The
Golden Victory) [2007] 2 AC 353 (HL) at para 29 (Lord Scott). It also worth noting that Baron Alderson,
who formulated the classic contract remoteness test in Hadley v Baxendale six years later, was part of the
court in Robinson v Harman (1854) 9 Exch 341.
56 Attorney General v Blake [2001] AC 268 (HL) 282 (Lord Nicholls). See also Johnson v Agnew

[1980] 1 AC 367 (HL) 400 (Lord Wilberforce) (also echoing Parke B in Robinson v Harman): ‘The gen-
eral principle for the assessment of damages is compensatory, ie, that the innocent party is to be placed,
so far as money can do so, in the same position as if the contract had been performed’.
57 From L Fuller and W Perdue, ‘The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages’ (1936) 46 Yale LJ 52.
58 ibid.
 14 A Brief Introduction to the Contract Damages Award

recover all the losses suffered in that transaction (as well as lost profits that would
have been made in an alternative transaction). But this is not because any different
measure applies to the expectation measure, putting the claimant in the position it
would have been in but for the breach. It is merely because the expectation—what
would have happened but for the breach—was that the defendant would have (eg)
taken care in giving advice, and had it done so the transaction would not have been
entered into at all. The claimant is entitled by damages to be put in that position.
Thus the damages in a contract or tort duty of care case, like those in a strict liabil-
ity contract case, are explained by the single principle that requires undoing the
breach and putting the claimant in the position as if it had not happened. It is just
that sometimes that position but for the breach is one after a successful transaction,
and sometimes it is merely the position after not having engaged in an unsuccessful
transaction.59
1-41 In contract law the claimant cannot recover damages measured by the expenditure
incurred in entering into the contract that was breached by the defendant, ie dam-
ages to put the claimant in the position as if it had never contracted with the defend-
ant. This may be the measure for tortious pre-contractual misrepresentation (where
but for the wrong the claimant would not have contracted with the defendant) or
restitution for unjust enrichment following termination of the contract (giving back
what the claimant conveyed under the contract), but cannot be the award for breach
of the contract itself. Thus, for example, in Quirk v Thomas the damages for breach
of a promise to marry could not include the profits of the business the claimant fore-
went for the marriage, because had the contract been performed the claimant would
not have earned the profits.60 However, as discussed below, where the position that
would have arisen but for the breach is uncertain, the courts may rely on a presump-
tion that the claimant would have broken even, and therefore would have earned
revenue (the expectation measure) equal to the expenditure in the transaction. Such
an award is not an award of a reliance measure; rather a conventional expectation
award but under which the measurement is assisted by a rebuttable presumption.61

(iv) The Substitution Theory

1-42 Some theorists have sought to argue that contract damages can be divided into two
parts: those that substitute for performance rather than simply compensating for
loss, and those that compensate for consequential losses.62 These theorists contend

59 See D Friedmann, ‘The Performance Interest in Contract Damages’ (1995) 111 LQR 628 and

‘Rights and Remedies’ (1997) 113 LQR 628 and SA Smith, ‘Rights, Remedies and the Normal Expectan-
cies in Tort and Contract’ (1997) 113 LQR 426.
60 Quirk v Thomas [1916] 1 KB 516 (CA) 534 to 535.
61 Quoted with approval in Baturina v Chistyakov [2017] EWHC 1049 (Comm) at para 229 (Carr J).

See below at paras 18-59 and following.

62 See R Stevens, ‘Damages and the Right to Performance: A Golden Victory or Not?’ in J Neyers,

R Bronagh and S Pitel (eds), Exploring Contract Law (Oxford, Hart, 2009); D Winterton, Money Awards
in Contract Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2015); K Barnett, ‘Substitutive Damages and Mitigation in
Contract Law’ (2016) 28 Singapore Academy LJ 795.
 The Principles of Compensation 15

that the first type of award measures direct loss, primarily by a difference in value
measure, and without any reduction under the principles of mitigation, remoteness
and legal causation; in other words, that award can go beyond the loss suffered
by the claimant. This gains support from those (primarily property tort) cases in
which courts show a reluctance to reduce a damages award despite the intended
non-remote use of the property leading to no or reduced loss.63 However, the theory,
which should be rejected, is inconsistent with those cases that do allow such a reduc-
tion of damages,64 that apply a later date of assessment,65 and that make clear that
any so-called normal measure of loss apparently suffered immediately at the date of
breach is simply the ordinary application of principles of legal causation, mitigation
and remoteness (eg a defect is patent, sub-sale remote, and/or there is a market by
which immediate mitigation is deemed to have taken place).66

B. The Breach Position and the Non-Breach Position

As a result of the expectation measure, the but for test, and the basic compensatory 1-43
aspect of damages, the fundamental comparison at the heart of contract damages is
between what happened following the breach (what I have called ‘the breach posi-
tion’) and what would have happened but for the breach (what I have called ‘the
non-breach position’).67 As Hicks QC has explained with admirable clarity:
I take the governing principle to be that damages should be such as will restore the plaintiff,
so far as a monetary award can do so, to the position which it would have occupied had the
breaches found to have been committed by the defendants not occurred. On that basis an
inquiry into damages should therefore normally take the form of a comparison, in financial
terms, between the events which have actually happened, [which I refer to in this book as
the breach position] and those which would have happen[ed] had the relevant breach not
occurred, [which I refer to in this book as the non-breach position] the former being sus-
ceptible of direct evidence, but the latter being necessarily hypothetical.68
The breach position is a matter of working out what happened after the breach, 1-44
although the principles of legal causation and mitigation alter that somewhat.
The non-breach position is a matter of working out what would have happened had 1-45
the breach not occurred, although this is sometimes modified by the concepts of loss
of chance or the defendant’s minimum obligation rule.

63 Especially Burdis v Livsey [2003] QB 36 (CA). See below at paras 4-256 and following.
64 See below paras 4-56 to 4-77 and 4-115 to 4-132.
65 See below paras 4-37 to 4-54 and ch 17.
66 See below paras 4-37 to 4-54 and ch 17.
67 These terms came from Andrew Summers (née Dyson). See further A Dyson and A Kramer, ‘There

is No “Breach Date Rule”: Mitigation, Difference in Value and Date of Assessment’ (2014) 130 LQR
259. Jane Stapleton calls the non-breach position the ‘normal expectancies’: J Stapleton, ‘The normal
expectancies measure in tort damages’ (1997) 113 LQR 257.
68 Stephenson Blake (Holdings) Ltd v Streets Heaver Ltd [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 44 at para 159 (Hicks

QC). And see Infiniteland Ltd v Artisan Contracting Ltd [2004] EWHC 955 (Ch) at para 125 (Park J),
where the judge adopted counsel’s terminology for the two valuations in the share purchase agreement
dispute of the ‘actual valuation’ and the ‘but for valuation’.
 16 A Brief Introduction to the Contract Damages Award

1-46 The essence of the contract damages enquiry is to find the net difference between the
breach and non-breach positions. It is only by doing this that one can work out what
loss was caused by the breach, ie what the claimant does not have but would have
had but for the breach, and what the claimant has but would not have had but for
the breach. A post-breach detriment is nothing to do with the defendant if it would
have happened anyway (ie if the detriment also forms part of the non-breach posi-
tion), and the same is true of a gain.
1-47 This can be illustrated by a simple diagram:

the non-breach position: hypothetical:

gains and harms that would have occurred but
time the for the breach
breach

loss: the
difference
the breach between the
position: gains and breach and
harms that actually non-breach
occurred, following the positions
breach, which diverted
the course of events

1-48 Because the essence of working out the breach position and the non-breach position
is different, and because legal rules operate on them differently, they are unpacked
separately in different parts of this book, especially chapter 12 for the breach position
and chapter 13 for the non-breach position.

C. What Is Not Covered by Baron Parke’s Dictum

1-49 Parke B’s dictum in Robinson v Harman69 covers the basic compensatory principle
and the ‘but for’ test of factual causation. It omits, however, the following two
important principles (as well as some other less important rules):
— Some actions, omissions and events are treated as robbing the breach of respon-
sibility for their consequences, and thus losses and gains caused by such actions,
omissions and events are deemed not to have occurred. This is the principle
of legal causation, and incorporates the important principle that a claimant
is deemed to have acted reasonably to avoid losses, known as the mitigation
principle.70

69 para 1-35 above.

70 See below in ch 15.
 The Theory of Contract Damages 17

— Losses falling outside the scope of the defendant’s responsibility are unrecover-
able. This encompasses the remoteness and scope of duty principles, as well as
the rule limiting recovery of mental distress/loss of amenity damages.71

D. Other Measures of Contract Damages

More than 99.9 per cent of contract damages awards are on the basic compensatory 1-50
principles discussed above and covered in detail in the majority of this book. There
are, however, a small minority of cases where a non-compensatory award of resti-
tutionary damages is made, and in theory there may in extreme circumstances be an
award of punitive damages. These are discussed below in chapter 23.

4. THE THEORY OF CONTRACT DAMAGES

The theory of contract damages, and of contract law generally, is a separate subject 1-51
that requires and justifies its own exploration elsewhere,72 and moreover is of mini-
mal importance to the practising lawyer. The following is a very basic introduction
to the relevant topics.

A. Economic Efficiency

Oliver Wendell Holmes Junior has observed that, at least in the majority of cases 1-52
when specific performance is unavailable and leaving purely moral considerations
aside, ‘The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must
pay damages if you do not keep it—and nothing else.’73 What this highlights is that
it will sometimes be more efficient for the defendant to breach a contract and pay
damages than for it to perform the contract, because it will cost the defendant more
to perform than the amount of damages it must pay upon breach. Whether or not
this is true depends upon the way damages are measured, but given the essentially
compensatory measure that English law imposes, and the rarity of specific perfor-
mance, it is certainly true that it will often be cheaper for the defendant to, in effect,
buy itself out of the contract by breaching and paying damages. This is most obvi-
ously the case where the defendant’s business is loss-making, or where the defendant
has a limited supply of its goods or services and has a buyer who values the goods or
services more than the defendant. If D has contracted to supply goods to A for £100,

71 See below in ch 14.

72 For a summary, see SA Smith, Contract Theory (Oxford, OUP, 2004) section 11.3, also 3.2.2, 4.1.2
to 4.1.3 and 4.3.3 to 4.3.4.
73 OW Holmes Jnr, ‘The Path of the Law’ (1897) 10 Harvard L Rev 457. See also OW Holmes Jnr,

The Common Law (1881) 301 ff.

 18 A Brief Introduction to the Contract Damages Award

and B is willing to pay £150, and there is no available market (as seems likely; other-
wise it is hard to explain the difference in price that A and B are willing to pay), then
providing A’s loss from non-supply is less than £50, D will profit from breaching the
contract with A, compensating it for its loss, and supplying B instead.
1-53 But whether the breach will be efficient (ie profitable to B) in a particular case
depends upon the extent to which A has suffered loss recognised by law. The more
the law recognises non-pecuniary loss or awards the cost of cure rather than diminu-
tion in value,74 the less often breach will be efficient (from B’s point of view).
1-54 The above is an economic analysis of the way contracts operate. However, there is a
school of theorists, largely American,75 who advocate setting and adjusting as well
as justifying legal contractual rules in a way that encourages efficient breach, and
that encourages economic efficiency generally (for example by setting a remoteness
rule that encourages loss to fall on the party who can most efficiently bear or insure
it). Such economic theories show no signs of purchase on the English judiciary, how-
ever, who remain, like the English law of contract, almost entirely uninterested in
how efficient or inefficient a particular rule or outcome will be. In my view, this is
as it should be.

B. Promissory Theories

1-55 The prevailing theory of contract law sees it as upholding the practice of
promising.76 Such an approach helps to explain the general expectation measure of
damages, which focuses on the value of the promised performance to the claimant.
Moreover, it helps to explain the primacy in contract law of the terms of the contract,
the otherwise surprisingly marginal role that rules of policy play, and the for the
most part unavailability of punitive damages. Thus the modern approach to inter-
pretation and implication of terms focuses on the meaning of what was expressly or
impliedly agreed between the parties.77 So too do the scope of duty and remoteness
principles.78 So too, arguably, does the rule that determines when damages for non-
pecuniary loss are recoverable.79

74 See for an illustration and discussion Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009)

236 CLR 72 (HC of Australia).

75 Especially Richard Posner: RA Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, 8th edn (Aspen Casebooks,

Wolters Kluwer, 2010).

76 The first account in time and impact being that of C Fried, Contract as Promise (Cambridge, MA,

Harvard University Press, 1981) (since updated in a 2nd edn in 2015).

77 See especially the judgments of Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme v West

Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 (HL) (construction) and Attorney General of Belize
v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] 1 WLR 1988 (PC) (implied terms), although see the slight retreat from the
Belize Telecom approach in Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey)
Ltd [2016] AC 742 (SC).
78 See the judgments of Lord Hoffmann in South Australia Asset Management v York Montague

[1997] AC 191 (HL) (scope of duty) and Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The
Achilleas) [2009] AC 61 (HL) (remoteness).
79 See below in ch 19.
 The Theory of Contract Damages 19

There nevertheless remain rules that are not, at least currently, explicable solely on 1-56
the basis of the parties’ agreement. In contract damages, the principal of these is the
rule of mitigation, alongside the rule of legal causation/res inter alios acta/collateral
acts. These are rules that exculpate the claimant because something between the
breach and the loss or gain, or something about the loss or gain, means that the loss
or gain (or the events that led to it) should be disregarded and not attributed to the
breach of the defendant. These rules are not, however, inconsistent with the promis-
sory theory: upholding a promise by compensating for the difference between the
position the claimant is in and that it would have been in but for the breach does not
require the defendant to compensate all aspects of the claimant’s position.

C. Reliance Theories

There remains a strain of theory that contends that contract law really protects 1-57
the reliance of the claimant upon the promise, and the harm that results from that
reliance, rather than upholding the promise itself (or its value). Atiyah in England
and Fuller and Perdue in America wrote the most influential works in this vein.80
For them, damages should and do lean towards a tort-like measure, compensating
the claimant for having relied upon the promise, rather than putting the claimant in
the position it expected to be in had the contract been performed (save, these theo-
rists would say, where an award of expectation damages is a useful proxy for the
reliance loss). The most important impact of this for practice is on the question of
whether there is an independent reliance measure of damages that can be awarded
even where reliance is greater than the expectation interest, most obviously where
the claimant has made a bad bargain. As regards English law, this battle has been
lost by the reliance theorists, and it is now clear that there is no reliance measure,
and the case law on the topic goes no further than establishing a rebuttable presump-
tion that had the contract been performed the claimant would have broken even.81

D. Default Rule Theories

A final theoretical concept that is useful for the reader to be aware of is that of the 1-58
default rule. This explains legal rules that the parties are able to contract out of
(most rules in the contract sphere) as merely ‘default rules’, ie rules that apply in
default of the agreement of the parties, to fill gaps where the parties have not agreed.
In the damages context, the parties are free to expressly allocate responsibility by

80 PS Atiyah, The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1979) and Promises,

Morals and Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1981), and LL Fuller and WR Perdue, ‘The Reliance Interest
in Contract Damages’ (1936) 46 Yale LJ 52.
81 See further paras 18-59 and following.
 20 A Brief Introduction to the Contract Damages Award

exclusion and limitation clauses, but in default of them doing so the common law
remoteness rule applies. Whether one is an economic or a promissory theorist, seeing
the remoteness rule (or the presumptive market measure in sale of goods cases, for
example) as a default rule around which the parties can expressly contract may assist
in understanding its operation.82

5. THE CURRENCY OF THE AWARD

1-59 Since 1975, English courts have been able to give judgments in a foreign currency,
with the conversion to Sterling applied if necessary on enforcement, applying the
rate prevailing at the date of that enforcement.83 Although initially applied in cases
of actions for a debt,84 this principle was then applied by the House of Lords in
The Folias and The Despina R to claims for tort damages (the claim in relation to
The Despina R was a collision claim) and contract damages (The Folias claim was a
charterparty case of damaged goods).85
1-60 The general rule is in two stages: First, does the contract provide for a currency to
govern contract damages? Secondly, if not, what is the appropriate currency out of
those in the contemplation of the parties?

A. The First Stage: The Currency of the Contract

1-61 The first rule is one of contract law and conflict of laws/private international law:
If from the terms of the contract it appears that the parties have accepted a currency as the
currency of account and payment in respect of all transactions arising under the contract,
then it would be proper to give a judgment for damages in that currency … But there may
be cases in which, although obligations under the contract are to be met in a specified
currency, or currencies, the right conclusion may be that there is no intention shown that
damages for breach of the contract should be given in that currency or currencies.86
1-62 In The Folias, although the charter provided for hire and other contractual payments
to be made in US dollars, that did not mean that the parties had impliedly provided

82 For some key examples of the huge literature on default rules see CJ Goetz and RE Scott,

‘The Limits of Expanded Choice: An Analysis of the Interactions Between Express and Implied Contract
Terms’ (1985) 73 California L Rev 261; I Ayres and R Gertner, ‘Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts:
An Economic Theory of Default Rules’ (1989) 99 Yale LJ 87; RE Scott, ‘A Relational Theory of Default
Rules for Commercial Contracts’ (1990) 19 J Legal Stud 597; R Barnett, ‘The Sound of Silence: Default
Rules and Contractual Consent’ (1992) 78 Virginia L Rev 821; and ‘… And Contractual Consent’ (1994)
3 South California Interdisciplinary LJ 421.
83 Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443 (HL). The date of enforcement has, however, been

found to be the date of the charging order before it is made final, not the date of the receipt of proceeds
thereunder, thereby creating a currency exchange risk between the date of execution and the receipt of
proceeds: Carnegie v Giessen [2005] 2 WLR 2510 (CA).
84 Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443 (HL).
85 Services Europe Atlantique Sud v Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag SVEA (The Folias and The Despina

R) [1979] AC 685 (HL).

86 The Folias and The Despina R [1979] AC 685 (HL) 700 (Lord Wilberforce).
 The Currency of the Award 21

for all damages awards to be paid in that currency. However, where a charterparty
expressed that demurrage was to be paid in US dollars then an award of demurrage
was awarded in that currency.87

B. The Second Stage/General Rule: The Truest Expression of Loss, if Not Too
Remote

If there is no contractually agreed currency, the courts are free to decide upon the 1-63
currency:
in which the loss was felt by the plaintiff or ‘which most truly expresses his loss’ … In
ascertaining which this currency is, the court must ask what is the currency, payment in
which will as nearly as possible compensate the plaintiff in accordance with the principle
of restitution, and whether the parties must be taken reasonably to have had this in
contemplation …88
In some cases the ‘immediate loss’ currency may be appropriate, in others the currency
in which it was borne by the plaintiff. There will be still others in which the appropriate
currency is the currency of the contract.89
The question therefore combines the evaluation of in what currency the claimant 1-64
feels the loss with the remoteness question of whether it was in the reasonable con-
templation of the parties that this would be the case.
Where tungsten rods bought by the claimant Dutch company in Brighton were ware- 1-65
housed with the defendant in England, it was not foreseeable that loss upon theft of
the goods would be suffered in anything other than Sterling (and so it did not matter
in what currency the owner in fact felt the loss, eg by purchasing a replacement).90
In contrast, in cases of international sale or carriage of goods, the suffering of a 1-66
loss in a foreign currency will rarely be too remote.91 The appropriate currency will
prima facie be the currency of the port of discharge, and therefore a cargo owner
will recover in Cuban pesos if the goods should have been delivered to Cuba.92
It is for the parties to show that the currency in which the claimant felt its loss was
a different currency.93
Often, however, the currency in which the loss is suffered is not the currency that 1-67
might reasonably have been expected. The loss will often be felt in the currency the
claimant had, and therefore spent to buy a replacement (or would have if, as must
be assumed, it had mitigated its loss), and the prima facie port of discharge rule will

87 Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA [1977] 1 QB 324 (CA), explained

by The Folias and The Despina R [1979] AC 685 (HL) 701 (Lord Wilberforce).
88 The Folias and the Despina R [1979] AC 685 (HL) 701 (Lord Wilberforce).
89 ibid 703.
90 Metalhaandel JA Magnus BV v Ardfields Transport Ltd and Eastfell Ltd [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 197

(Gatehouse J).
91 The Folias and The Despina R [1979] AC 685 (HL).
92 Empresa Cubana Importada de Alimentos v Octavia Shipping Co SA (The Kefalonia Wind) [1986]

1 Lloyd’s Rep 273, 291 (Bingham J).

93 ibid.
 22 A Brief Introduction to the Contract Damages Award

in such cases be displaced. In The Folias, the Swedish ship owner was liable to a
charterer (under a charterparty in which payments were in US dollars) for damage
to goods, and the French charterer satisfied the Brazilian cargo owner’s claim against
it in French francs converted at that date into Brazilian cruzeiros.94 The loss was
suffered by the payment of French francs and it was in the parties’ contemplation
that the French charterer would have to use French francs, and so the judgment for
damages was given in French francs.
1-68 In The Federal Huron, where soya beans were delivered damaged to a French com-
pany in France and always purchased and insured in US dollars, the loss was felt in
dollars. (This was true even of the expenses incurred in France, as they were handled
through the claimant’s US dollar account.) Further, the parties must have expected
this.95
Likewise in The Texaco Melbourne it was shown that the claimant (the Ghana
Ministry of Fuel and Energy) only used Ghana cedis, and would therefore have had
to use cedis to purchase foreign currency to purchase replacement oil.96 The appro-
priate currency must be determined at the date of suffering of the loss, and the fact
that the currency had appreciated or depreciated between that date and date of judg-
ment (nine years of heavy deprecation of the Ghana cedi in the Texaco Melbourne
case) was not to be taken into account in determining the currency of the award,
with the period of delay to be compensated in interest only.97 Although it has been
criticised, this decision seems correct, since if the claimant had bought replacement
oil it would have been put in the position as if the contract had been performed
and suffered its loss in cedis.98 The real problem is whether an award of interest
adequately compensates for the period without cedis that would have been insulated
from depreciation by being continuously converted into and out of dollars (through
oil trading), which is a matter for the calculation of the interest award.
1-69 Finally, it should be noted that non-pecuniary loss will always be appropriately
measured in Sterling (or, more’s the point, never inappropriately measured in
Sterling), since it is not suffered in any currency.99

C. Inflation and Tax

1-70 The loosely related issues of inflation and tax are discussed below at paragraph 7-54
and paragraph 13-126 respectively.

94 The Folias and the Despina R [1979] AC 685 (HL) 702 (Lord Wilberforce). See also The Food Corp

of India v Carras (Hellas) Ltd (The Dione) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 577 (Lloyd J).
95 Société Française Bunge SA v Belcan NV (The Federal Huron) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 189, 192

(Bingham J). See also Virani Ltd v Marcel Revert y Compagnia SA [2003] EWCA (Civ) 1651.
96 Attorney General of the Republic of Ghana v Texaco Overseas Tankships Ltd (The Texaco

Melbourne) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 473 (HL) 476ff (Lord Goff).

97 The Texaco Melbourne [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 473 (HL) 476ff (Lord Goff).
98 C Proctor, ‘Changes in Monetary Value and the Assessment of Damages’ in D Saidov and

R Cunnington, Contract Damages: Domestic and International Perspectives (Oxford, Hart Publishing,
2008) 480 to 482.
99 cf Hoffman v Sofaer [1982] 1 WLR 1350 (Talbot J) as regards pain, suffering and loss of amenity

in a personal injury award.

 Part II

Types of Complaint
 2
Pure Services: Non-Supply/Defective
Supply/Delayed Supply
Damages for breach of contracts to supply services not related to property, such
as cleaning, teaching, carriage, administration, and information technology (but
excluding misadvice and therefore most professional negligence)1. Includes: services
to commercial claimants, services to public bodies, services to consumers. Also
covers damages for lost management time.

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2-01

2. Services to Commercial Claimants (Including Lost Management Time Claims) ....... 2-07
3. Services to Public Bodies .......................................................................................... 2-55
4. Services to Consumers.............................................................................................. 2-59

1. EINLEITUNG

A. ‘Pure’ Services and What this Chapter Covers

W
HEN CONSIDERING SERVICES, it is it useful to borrow from unjust 2-01
enrichment law a distinction between pure services and other services.
Pure services are those that do not provide the promisee with a market-
able residue, such as a piece of property or an increase in the value of property. The
‘impure’ service, in this sense, is typified by the construction contract, where the
purpose of the service is the creation or improvement to a piece of property. Insofar
as a service provides or alters property in this way the claimant’s complaint, and
therefore the measure of damages, is similar to that in the case of non-supply of
property or supply of defective property (such as in sale of goods cases), or damage
to property. Accordingly, for such cases the reader is referred to chapter 4.2

1
This chapter excludes misadvice and professional negligence claims, for which see ch 3.
2
The relevance of this distinction in unjust enrichment cases is as to the nature of the enrichment by
the recipient of the service (eg for the purposes of establishing a quantum meruit or similar case against
that recipient). In impure service cases the property or other marketable end product is the enrichment
(and often an incontrovertible benefit). In pure service cases the enrichment, where the law recognises
one, is less easy to quantify because not tradeable.
 26 Non-Supply/Defective Supply/Delayed Supply

2-02 This chapter, in contrast, deals solely with non-provision or defective provision of
pure services, such as acting as a sales, marketing or publicity agent; security or
fire protection services; teaching; entertainment; and leisure. (Advice, another pure
service, is discussed in chapter 3.) Such services are ubiquitous in practice but, apart
from employment, carriage and professional advice, under-examined in the text-
books and literature, which focus on those few pure service areas and on the sale
of goods and construction. The chapter also covers pretty much anything that does
not fall within the other chapters, ie not merely services engaged for money, but also
promises to do or abstain that form part of commercial or other contracts.

B. The General Approach

2-03 Damages in services cases are assessed according to the ordinary principles of con-
tract law. The cost of cure (in cases of defective services) or replacement (in cases
of non-delivery of services) is awarded where all reasonable claimants would have
taken it or where it has in fact been expended or is intended and is reasonable. Often
the cost of cure or replacement is inappropriate or unreasonable, for example in
time-sensitive cases3 or where the service is ultimately supplied but is supplied late.
In such cases, and in the usual way, the claimant is entitled to recover its unavoided
and unavoidable loss, which will include non-pecuniary loss, lost profits, costs, and
compensation for damage to property or personal injury.

C. Late Delivery by a Carrier

2-04 A typical case of defective service provision arises in carriage cases, where the car-
rier delivers its passengers or cargo, but does so late. Damages for temporary loss of
use of property (such as in late delivery of goods by a carrier or seller) are covered
in chapter 6. Carriage of persons is covered in the present chapter.4 There can be
other carriage cases not falling into either category. For example, in one Canadian
case a carrier was told that contract tender documentation had to be delivered by
12 noon on 2 October 1973, but in breach it was delivered at 3.17pm and so law-
fully disregarded by the tender recipient. The claimant recovered for the lost profit
on the lost contract of CAN$70,000.5

3 eg failure to provide a driving practice test booked for the night before the driving test, an

example from Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB)
at para 458 (Stadlen J), and see also paras 484 to 485.
4 eg Hobbs v London and South Western Railway Co (1875) LR 10 QB 111 as to awards for non-

pecuniary loss and Le Blanche v London and North Western Railway Co (1876) 1 CPD 286 as to awards
for reasonable consequential expenses. As to the particular difficulties of remoteness in relation to lost
profits resulting from delayed carriage of persons, see the discussion below in paras 14-21, 14-41 to
14-42, 14-164 and 14-176.
5 Cornwall Gravel Co Ltd v Purolator Courier Ltd (1978) 83 DLR (3d) 267 (Ontario HC), affirmed

(1979) 115 DLR (3d) 511 (Ontario CA) and [1980] 2 SCR 118 (SC of Canada).
Services to Commercial Claimants (Including Lost Management Time Claims) 27

D. Types of Loss

The same types of harm arise in service cases as in other contract cases. This may 2-05
include lost profits, lost increase in the value of property,6 damage to property,7
liability to third parties,8 and non-pecuniary loss.9

E. The Importance of the Type of Claimant

The types of loss suffered, and so the general pattern of the damages award, vary 2-06
according to whether the service was (or should have been) provided to a commercial
claimant or to a consumer. Most obviously, commercial claimants largely feel their
loss in financial terms, whereas non-commercial claimants may not. The remain-
der of this chapter is therefore divided according to the type of claimant, although
the majority of the decisions and working out of principles relate to commercial
claims.

2. SERVICES TO COMMERCIAL CLAIMANTS (INCLUDING

LOST MANAGEMENT TIME CLAIMS)

A. Direct Proof of Financial Loss

(i) Cost of Replacement

Where a replacement employee or service provider is enlisted as a result of the defend- 2-07
ant’s breach,10 or it would have been reasonable to engage one,11 then that cost of
cure (less any sum that would have been paid to the defendant if it had performed
in full, but was not in fact paid and so has been saved)12 is the measure of loss. This
includes recruitment agency costs of finding replacement staff where, for example,
the defendant has poached some of the claimant’s staff and they need replacing.13

6 eg construction cases such as Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406 (CA) at 414 (and see ch 4 on prop-

erty); tenant’s failure to repair cases, which are governed by s 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927
and discussed below in paras 4-187 to 4-192; landlord’s failure to repair cases, eg Calabar Properties Ltd
v Stitcher [1984] 1 WLR 287 (CA) 297 to 298 (Griffiths LJ).
7 eg Logical Computer Supplies Ltd v Euro Car Parks Ltd [2002] IP & T 233 [2001] All ER (D) 197

(Richard Fernyhough QC) (IT services damage to hard disk). There are also many cases of damage to
cargo by a carrier, eg The St Cloud (1863) B & L 4, 166 ER 269.
8 See below ch 20.
9 See below ch 19.
10 eg National Coal Board v Galley [1958] 1 WLR 16 (CA). In the lease context in relation to

replacement accommodation see para 8-17 below.

11 De Beers UK Ltd v Atos Origin IT Services UK Ltd [2010] 134 Con LR 151 at para 345

(Edwards-Stuart J).
12 Gartell & Son v Yeovil Town Football & Athletic Club Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 62 (CA) at para 33.
13 Zomojo Pty Ltd v Hurd (No 4) [2014] FCA 441 (FC of Australia), affirmed on other grounds

[2015] FCAFC 147 (FC of Australia).

 28 Non-Supply/Defective Supply/Delayed Supply

(ii) Liability to Third Parties

2-08 Where the defendant’s breach caused the claimant to have liability to third parties,
the claimant can recover an indemnity for its liability and costs in the usual way.14
Thus where a Greek hotel owner provided unsafe rooms to a tour operator, leading
to the death of the operator’s customer’s two children by carbon monoxide poison-
ing, the operator recovered an indemnity from the hotel owner.15

(iii) Direct Proof of Financial Loss

2-09 The claimant may in some cases be able to prove lost profits or costs in the
ordinary way.
2-10 In one Scottish case the defendant manufactured and distributed the claimant’s
brand of cardboard under a licence from the claimant, for a period after the claimant
acquired the brand and before the claimant became sole manufacturer and distribu-
tor. The defendant distributed defective board and adopted an antagonistic atti-
tude to customers which damaged the claimant’s brand and led to the claimant
earning lower profits after it became sole distributor, and £4.25m in damages were
awarded.16
2-11 In another case the defendant electricity supplier breached its contract by interrupt-
ing the power supply, causing a partially completed concrete pour to be wasted,
although the losses of profit were found to be too remote.17
2-12 And in Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd,18 the defend-
ant’s failure to provide the paid-for Formula One test driving practice was thought
to have ended the claimant’s chances of a Formula One career, permitting an award
of lost chance of earnings in such a career (assessed at only US$100,000,19 given
how speculative such a career was).20

(iv) Difficulties of Proof

2-13 In many business cases it will be difficult to prove a particular loss of custom or
profit. As Lord Templeman put it in Miles v Wakefield, ‘A strike may involve
the employer in a loss of profits but it is impossible to show that any particular

14 See below ch 20.

15 Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd v Tourmajor Ltd [2013] EWHC 2139 (QB) (Swift J).
16 Tullis Russell Papermakers Ltd v Inveresk Ltd [2010] CSOH 148 (Court of Session, Outer House).
17 Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Power plc (1994) 71 BLR 20 (HL).
18 Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB) 496

(Stadlen J).
19 Although the court ultimately awarded much more than this on the alternative basis not of profits

lost but of the value of the services not provided, or the non-pecuniary loss suffered. See the discussion
at paras 2-37 to 2-41 below.
20 With hindsight it appears that the judge was right to award a low sum for the loss of chance,

not because the chances of succeeding but for the breach were so low, but because the breach did not
impair those chances as much as was thought: in 2013, subsequent to the judgment, Mr Van der Garde
commenced driving in the Caterham Formula One team, so it appears that he may not have lost much.
Services to Commercial Claimants (Including Lost Management Time Claims) 29

proportion of the loss is attributable to the industrial action of an individual

worker’.21 In some cases the problem of proof will arise because the services are
simply not sufficiently directly linked to the profit-making activity, for exam-
ple the loss of secretarial, cleaning, training or IT services, or the services of a
chauffeur,22 as well as a variety of back-office (non-client-facing) functions in most
businesses.
However, the starting point is that, as Lord Templeman explained in Miles 2-14
v Wakefield, ‘An employer always suffers damage from the industrial action of an
individual worker. The employer suffers the loss of the services of the worker’.23
Roche LJ explained in Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron and Coal Co v Tew the court’s approach
in such cases:
In the case of a hewer [in a coal mine] such as Tew, the application of these principles [meas-
uring lost profit] is not difficult. It may be more difficult with another class of workman not
so directly concerned in getting coal from the seam. But with another class of workman,
a tribunal must do its best either to assess the contribution of the workman in question to
output and arrive at a figure representing his notional output during the period of default,
or if it cannot do that, it must decide upon the evidence what would have been the value to
the employer of the services he did not give.24
The difficulty comes in fairly assessing and quantifying the loss in such cases. 2-15

B. The Presumption of Breaking Even

In service cases it will often be difficult to prove lost profits, and in these circum- 2-16
stances the claimant will often be able to rely on the presumption that it would at
least have broken even, an important principle discussed below in chapter 18.25
In essence, the court will rebuttably presume that the claimant would have broken
even on its venture, but for the breach, and if the claimant cannot prove it would
have made a profit and the defendant cannot prove the claimant would have made a
loss, damages are measured by this unrebutted presumption.

(i) The Costs of the Venture Generally

Applying the presumption of breaking even is simplest where the services were 2-17
critical, such that the breach actually caused a venture to be aborted or wholly inter-
rupted. The abortion of the venture, with no revenue being earned from it, simplifies
the calculation that leads from the unrebutted presumption of breaking even. For
example, when the American actor defendant in Anglia TV Ltd v Reed26 breached

21 Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [1987] AC 539 (HL) 560.

22 An example of Lord Templeman in Miles v Wakefield MDC [1987] AC 539 (HL) 560.
23 Lord Templeman in Miles v Wakefield MDC [1987] AC 539 (HL) 560.
24 Roche LJ in Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron and Coal Co v Tew [1935] 1 LJNCCA 284.
25 Paras 18-59 and following.
26 Anglia TV Ltd v Reed [1972] 1 QB 60 (CA).
 30 Non-Supply/Defective Supply/Delayed Supply

his contract, the entire film was cancelled. The claimant was entitled to recover the
lost revenue, the outcome of the film was impossible to prove, and so the presump-
tion that the claimant would have broken even was unrebutted and the lost revenue
was presumed to be the same as the expenditure wasted on the film venture.27 And
in the Court of Appeal decision of Dataliner Ltd v Vehicle Builders & Repairers
Association,28 the damages for breach by the providers of a defective trade show
(the defects being failure to organise and advertise it properly) were measured on the
presumption that but for the breach the claimant would have earned enough new
business to recoup its expenditure on attending the show. Here the venture (the trade
show) was not actually aborted, but the approach was the same, as the show was
totally ineffective for the purpose of profit-making.29

(ii) The Price Paid to the Defendant

2-18 A key element in the costs that it is presumed would have been recouped from a
business venture will be (where paid or owed) the price paid to the defendant itself
for the services. Thus, had Mr Reed’s fee of £1,050 plus expenses been paid at the
date of breach, that too would have been recoverable from him in damages in Anglia
TV Ltd v Reed, discussed in the previous section, as an expense wasted that (it was
presumed) would have been recouped through revenue.
2-19 Sometimes the defendant’s fee will be the entire cost that it is presumed would have
been recouped (rather than the broader costs of the entire venture). In Playup Inter-
active Entertainment (UK) Pty Ltd v Givemefootball Ltd30 the organiser of the Pro-
fessional Footballers’ Association Fans Awards failed to provide contact details for
around a million football fans (and some other benefits) to the claimant sponsor of
the awards, who was a provider of interactive games based on predicting the out-
come of football matches and would have marketed its games to the fans. Walker
J agreed with the claimant’s approach of starting the damages calculation with the
sum arrived at by apportioning the price between the contact details and other ben-
efits that were provided and those that were promised, on the basis that it saved
having to have expert evidence as to the realisable value of what was promised and
the realisable value of what was delivered and ‘proceeds upon the assumption that
the Sponsorship Agreement was worth what PlayUp paid for it’ and that assumption
was not challenged.31
2-20 And in the Australian decision of Zomojo Pty Ltd v Hurd (No 4) the defendant
managing director failed in breach of contract to direct his full working time to the

27 Discussed further below in paras 18-59 and following.

28 Dataliner Ltd v Vehicle Builders & Repairers Association (CA) 27 August 1995.
29 See also Bowlay Logging Ltd v Domtar Ltd (1978) 87 DLR (3d) 325 (British Columbia SC), aff ’d

(1982) 135 DLR (3d) 179; Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd v Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd [2012]
144 Con LR 72 (Roth J) appeal allowed on repudiation [2013] 4 All ER 371 (CA).
30 Playup Interactive Entertainment (UK) Pty Ltd v Givemefootball Ltd [2011] EWHC 1980 (Comm)

(Walker J).
31 ibid at para 272.
Services to Commercial Claimants (Including Lost Management Time Claims) 31

claimant employer (he had spent 27 hours on other ventures) and was obliged to
pay the relevant fraction of his monthly salary as damages ‘it being presumed that
the value to the employer of the employee’s work is no less than the employer was
paying for it’.32
Another example is White Arrow Express Ltd v Lamey’s Distribution Ltd,33 where 2-21
the defendant skimped on the delivery and related services it provided to the claim-
ant’s mail order business. The award in that case is best understood as using the
difference in market value of the services promised and those provided as a proxy or
presumptive indicator of the amount of profits, but the reasoning in that particular
case is discussed further below.34

(iii) ‘Lost Management Time’ Claims: Where the Defendant’s Breach

Diverted the Claimant’s Staff

The same approach is applied to cases where the defendant caused the loss of a 2-22
service that was to be provided by a third party, ie the defendant is not the service
provider. Thus, where the defendant’s breach significantly disrupts the claimant’s
business so as to take up time of the claimant’s employees, the claimant can recover
for lost employee time (often imprecisely called a ‘lost management time’ claim) in
the amount of the relevant employees’ wages for the lost time. This is true even if no
extra employees were taken on and so the claimant demonstrably suffered no extra
cost because even but for the breach of contract (or duty of care; many of the cases
are tort cases) the wages would still have been paid,35 and even if the claimant suf-
fered no directly provable loss of profit.
The position was authoritatively summarised by Wilson LJ in the Court of Appeal 2-23
decision in the statutory tort case of Aerospace Publishing v Thames Water
Utilities:36
I consider that the authorities establish the following propositions.
(a) The fact and, if so, the extent of the diversion of staff time have to be properly
established and, if in that regard evidence which it would have been reasonable for the
claimant to adduce is not adduced, he is at risk of a finding that they have not been
established.
(b) The claimant also has to establish that the diversion caused significant disruption to its
business.

32 Zomojo Pty Ltd v Hurd (No 4) [2014] FCA 441 (FC of Australia) at para 15 (Jessup J), aff ’d [2015]

FCAFC 147 (FC of Australia) at para 118.

33 White Arrow Express Ltd v Lamey’s Distribution Ltd [1995] CLC 251, (1995) 15 Tr LR 69 (CA).
34 See paras 2-35 to 2-36 below.
35 Of course, if there were additional employees or contractors engaged as a result of the breach, their

costs would be recoverable on ordinary principles.

36 Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 3 (CA) at para 86

(Wilson LJ), the rest of the Court agreeing. This dictum has been quoted with approval in: Al Rawas
v Pegasus Energy Ltd [2009] 1 All ER 346 (Jack J) (damages under freezing order cross-undertaking);
Borealis AB v Geogas Trading SA [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 482 (Gross LJ) (contract of gas supply); Tinseltime Ltd
v Roberts [2011] EWHC 1199 (TCC) (HHJ Stephen Davies) (nuisance).
 32 Non-Supply/Defective Supply/Delayed Supply

(c) Even though it may well be that strictly the claim should be cast in terms of a loss of
revenue attributable to the diversion of staff time, nevertheless in the ordinary case,
and unless the defendant can establish the contrary, it is reasonable for the court to
infer from the disruption that, had their time not been thus diverted, staff would have
applied it to activities which would, directly or indirectly, have generated revenue
for the claimant in an amount at least equal to the costs of employing them during
that time.
2-24 Dealing with and expanding upon the three points in turn:
2-25 First, it is important that the diversion of staff time from ordinary duties is properly
proven,37 although it need not necessarily be by detailed records if unavailable.38
2-26 Secondly, the staff diversion must involve ‘significant disruption’ to the claimant’s
revenue-generating business.39 This may be inferred from the sheer scale and time of
the work done by the staff in relation to the breach and its consequences.40
2-27 The recovery is available in relation to ‘back office’ employees, and not only ‘profit
makers’,41 as long as the relevant staff are directly or indirectly involved in ‘revenue-
generating activities’.42 In one case a bank employee having to spend several months
in Vietnam did not disrupt the bank’s business in any way.43 Likewise, where a com-
pany’s engineers spent time working on faults in the defendant’s tele-coms handsets
that was not a disruption to revenue-generating activities because it was their usual
support function,44 likewise the diversion of time of in-house lawyers.45 However,
the time of several employees trying to get to grips with defective or inadequate
computer software has been held to be recoverable,46 as has additional time spent by
building contractors,47 or the time spent investigating the defendant’s fraud, plus the

37 See also Bridge UK.com Ltd v Abbey Pynford plc [2007] EWHC 728 (TCC) at paras 123 to 135

(Ramsey J) (contract), and the tort cases of Tate and Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London
Council [1982] 1 WLR 149, 152 (Forbes J) and R+V Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance
Solutions SA [2006] EWHC 42 (Comm) at para 77 (Gloster J) (conspiracy to defraud).
38 Horace Holman Group Ltd v Sherwood International Group Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 83 (Nov) at

para 73 (Bowsher QC). There was inadequate evidence in Peregrine Systems Ltd v Steria Ltd [2004]
EWHC 275 (TCC) at paras 185 to 186 (Seymour QC).
39 Note that it is not necessary that the claimant is a profit-making business, providing it is a revenue-

generating (even if not-for-profit) business: The Salvage Association v Cap Financial Services Ltd [1995]
FSR 654 (HHJ Thayne Forbes).
40 Al Rawas v Pegasus Energy Ltd [2009] 1 All ER 346 (Jack J) at para 23 (damages under freezing

order cross-undertaking).
41 Horace Holman Group Ltd v Sherwood International Group Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 83 (Nov)

at paras 75 to 78 (Bowsher QC).

42 Wilson LJ in Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 3 (CA)

at para 87.
43 Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp [2001] EWCA Civ 55 (CA) (deceit).
44 Azzurri Communications Ltd v International Telecommunications Equipment Ltd [2013] EWPCC

17 at para 93 (Birss QC).

45 Portman Building Society v Bevan Ashford [2000] 1 EGLR 81 (CA) (overruled on a different point

by BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland [2017] 2 WLR 1029 (SC)); H TV Ltd v ITV2 Ltd [2015] EWHC
2840 (Comm) at para 319 (Flaux J) obiter.
46 Horace Holman Group Ltd v Sherwood International Group Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 83 (Nov)

(Bowsher QC) and obiter in Sam Business Systems Ltd v Hedley and Co [2002] EWHC 2733
(Bowsher QC).
47 Obiter in Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp [2001] EWCA Civ 55 (CA)

at para 49 Potter LJ.

Services to Commercial Claimants (Including Lost Management Time Claims) 33

overheads attributable to that employee’s time.48 In one case a claim for diversion
of executive time dealing with the defendant landlord’s breaches of the covenant to
repair was refused without discussion, although there was no real evidence that the
claimant corporate tenant of a residential property had profit-making activities that
were disrupted.49
Thirdly, as a matter of ordinary principles, the claim is not and cannot be one for 2-28
the wages of the employees, as but for the contract breach or tort the employees
would still have been paid. The claim is rather for the loss of revenue or other benefit
that the employees would have generated if doing the jobs for which they were
employed.50 As the quotation of Wilson LJ shows (particularly ‘unless the Defend-
ant can establish the contrary’ and ‘infer’),51 what arises is a rebuttable presumption
that the staff would have generated as much revenue as they cost.52 As Birss QC
explained in the Azzurri Communications Ltd case,
if the breach can be said to have caused diversion of staff to an extent substantial enough
to lead to a significant disruption of the business then it is reasonable to draw the inference
of a loss of revenue equal to the cost of employing the staff.53
Thus the claim is for that lost revenue, not for the cost itself. The basis of the 2-29
presumption is that, as the accountancy expert observed in the case of Horace
Holman Group Ltd v Sherwood International Group Ltd, ‘every employer values
each employee at more than the employee is paid, otherwise there is no point in
employing him’.54 Or as Lord Templeman has observed, ‘The value of those services
to the employer cannot be less than the salary payable for those services, other-
wise most employers would become insolvent’.55 Even with back-office time, ‘the
claimants were paying for time which was to be a benefit to them and they lost the
benefit of that time’ (and that staff ’s diversion would have had a knock-on effect on
front-office staff).56 As one judge observed, the cost of employee time is taken as an
‘approximation for the loss of revenue’.57

48 Nationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd [2010] 1 WLR 258 (Clarke J) (fraud).
49 City and Metropolitan Properties Ltd v Greycroft Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1085, 1088 and 1090
(Mowbray QC).
50 Thus lost time of employees whose jobs are to deal with just the sorts of problems the defendant has

caused may not give rise to a claim as they were not diverted from anything else.
51 Above para 2-23.
52 As well as the cases at para 2-23 and n 36 above, see also at 4 Eng Ltd v Harper [2009] Ch 91 at

para 40 (David Richards J).

53 Azzurri Communications Ltd v International Telecommunications Equipment Ltd (t/a SOS

Communications) [2013] EWPCC 17 at para 92, also para 94 (Birss QC).

54 Horace Holman Group Ltd v Sherwood International Group Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 83 (Nov) at

para 75 (Bowsher QC), quoted by Wilson LJ in Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
[2007] EWCA Civ 3 (CA) at para 82.
55 Miles v Wakefield MDC [1987] AC 539 (HL) 560. See also Karim v Wemyss [2016] EWCA Civ 27

(CA) at para 69 (Lewison LJ).

56 Horace Holman Group Ltd v Sherwood International Group Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 83 (Nov)

at para 78 (Bowsher QC).

57 Stanley Burnton J’s view in Admiral Management Services Ltd v Para-Protect Europe Ltd [2002]

1 WLR 2722, 2745 to 2746 (breach of confidentiality).

 34 Non-Supply/Defective Supply/Delayed Supply

2-30 The award is therefore of inferred lost revenue equal to the amount the employees
are paid, plus overheads.58 Any higher value (such as their external charge-out rate)
can only be recovered if the claimant actually proves that it lost revenue of that
amount (whether by charging out the staff to third parties or otherwise).59
2-31 This approach is closely analogous to that in more general wasted expenditure/
reliance damages cases where it is assumed that, had a venture not been aborted, the
claimant would have earned revenue so as to recoup the expenditure of a venture,
ie would have broken even, and therefore (if the presumption is not rebutted) the
claimant recovers damages in the amount of the wasted expenditure. Here the same
approach is applied but merely to the single expenditure of the relevant employee’s
services: it is presumed that the revenue (or other recoverable benefit or obviation
of harm) that would have been provided by the employee or other service-provider
(the services of which the claimant was deprived by the defendant) would have been
equal to the wages or other price of that employee or other service-provider.
2-32 Thus if the claimant separately advances a particularised lost profit claim, the lost
management time claim would be duplicatory.60

(iv) Lost Overheads

2-33 Similarly, building contractors who have been delayed can often claim for office or
other off-site overheads on the basis that they would have been reimbursed by rev-
enue earned on other projects but for the delay.61 The same principles as apply to
lost management time must logically apply here too.

(v) Loss of the Claimant’s Own Work Time

2-34 In Haysman v Mrs Rogers Films Ltd,62 the claimant was managing director and
majority owner of a company and his own time was diverted by having to deal with
the damage to his home caused by the defendant’s breaches. The court awarded
a pro-rated amount of the claimant’s annual net dividend and other income, on
the basis that a certain number of days’ profitable work (a smaller number than
claimed for) had been unavoidably lost, and that this was a reasonable way of
quantifying a relatively small loss. Similarly in the solicitor’s negligence case of

58 As to overheads see Nationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd [2010] 1 WLR

258 (Clarke J) (fraud) and Karim v Wemyss [2016] EWCA Civ 27 (CA) at paras 69 to 70 (Lewison LJ).
59 Azzurri Communications Ltd v International Telecommunications Equipment Ltd (t/a SOS

Communications) [2013] EWPCC 17 at para 94 (Birss QC).

60 Tinseltime Ltd v Roberts [2011] EWHC 1199 (TCC) at para 73 (HHJ Stephen Davies).
61 Try Build Ltd v Invicta Leisure Tennis Ltd (1997) 71 Con LR 140 at paras 107 to 108 (Bowsher

QC), applying JF Finnigan Ltd v Sheffield City Council (1988) 43 BLR 124, 134 (Stabb QC); Walter Lilly
& Co Ltd v Mackay [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC) (Akenhead J). See also Nationwide Building Society
v Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd [2010] 1 WLR 258 (Clarke J) (fraud) as to overheads.
62 Haysman v Mrs Rogers Films Ltd [2008] EWHC 2494 (QB) paras 18 to 19 (Derek Sweeting QC).

See also the construction case of The Board of Governors of the Hospitals for Sick Children v McLaughlin
& Harvey plc (1987) 19 Con LR 25, 97 (Newey QC).
Services to Commercial Claimants (Including Lost Management Time Claims) 35

Gold v Mincoff Science & Gold, a dentist was held in principle entitled to recover
for the profits lost while he diverted his time to a substantial claim he faced from a
third party as a result of the defendant’s negligence.63

C. No Separate Claim for Difference in Market Value of the Service

(i) Support for a Difference in Market Value of the Service Claim

The question of how the value of services to the employer should be measured arose 2-35
in White Arrow Express Ltd v Lamey’s Distribution Ltd.64 In that case the sup-
plier promised to provide an enhanced delivery service for the claimant’s mail order
business (the delivery to include, among other things, the giving of advance notice
to customers, the removal of packaging, and the delivery staff wearing a particular
uniform). Instead, the defendant provided only a basic service, but the claimant was
unable to prove that it had thereby incurred liability to any of its customers or lost
any custom. Although there was no recovery because the claimant had not properly
pleaded and evidenced its loss (instead formulating the claim as being for a part of
the price paid by the claimant), Lord Bingham MR explained, obiter, that a claimant
can only recover if it can prove loss, specifically that the defendant has ‘injured his
financial position’, by demonstrating ‘specific heads of loss, or persuade the court to
draw an inference of loss’, but also commented that:
It is, on the other hand, obvious that in the ordinary way a party who contracts and pays
for a superior service or superior goods and receives a substantially inferior service or infe-
rior goods has suffered loss. If A hires and pays in advance for a four-door saloon at £200
per day and receives delivery of a 2-door saloon available for £100 per day, he has suffered
loss. If B orders and pays in advance for a 5-course meal costing £50 and is served a three-
course meal costing £30, he has suffered loss. If C agrees and pays in advance to be taught
the violin by a world famous celebrity at £500 per hour, and is in the event taught by a
musical nonentity whose charging rate is £25 per hour, he has suffered loss. It is irrelevant
whether A, B or C would be entitled to reject the goods or services tendered if they in fact
accept them. It would defy common sense to suggest that A, B or C have suffered no loss,
and are not financially disadvantaged by the breach. The measure of damages in all of these
cases is the difference between the price paid (or, if it is lower, the market value of what was
contracted for) and the market value of what was obtained …
It is not the law that an innocent party who contracts for a deluxe service and receives a
sub-standard service is in principle denied a claim to more than nominal damages … an
innocent party in such a position must quantify, or at least provide evidence from which
the court may draw an inference as to, the difference between the value (usually the market
value) of what was contracted for and the value (again, usually the market value) of what
was provided. (Emphasis added)65

63 Gold v Mincoff Science & Gold (21 December 2000), paras 159 to 164 (Neuberger J).
64 White Arrow Express Ltd v Lamey’s Distribution Ltd [1995] CLC 1251, (1996) 15 Tr LR 69 (CA).
65 At 1255 to 1256.
 36 Non-Supply/Defective Supply/Delayed Supply

2-36 Bingham MR went on to explain his view that in the holiday cases where a
holiday of a lesser standard than promised was provided, the claimant would have a
claim for the difference in value between the two holidays ‘irrespective of any claim
for loss of enjoyment, disappointed expectation or inconvenience’.66 Bingham MR’s
clear view was, therefore, that the claimant is entitled to the difference in the market
value between the service provided and that promised, although this must be treated
with caution as the point was obiter and agreed by the parties (the defendant instead
focussing its attack, successfully, on the claimant not having led any such market
evidence). The same view was expressed, obiter and in passing, by Lord Nicholls in
Attorney General v Blake:67
If a shopkeeper supplies inferior and cheaper goods than those ordered and paid for, he
has to refund the difference in price. That would be the outcome of a claim for damages
for breach of contract. That would be so, irrespective of whether the goods in fact served
the intended purpose. There must be scope for a similar approach, without any straining
of principle, in cases where the defendant provided inferior and cheaper services than those
contracted for.
2-37 The most extensive discussion of the point then came in the 2010 first instance
decision of Stadlen J in Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One
Team Ltd.68 In that case the claimant (and his corporate entity) had paid for
6,000 km of test driving with attendant benefits, and only been provided with
around a third of that. Stadlen J carefully reviewed the various authorities at
some length, and awarded damages of US$1,865,000—essentially a proportion of
the price paid on the presumption that this represented the value of the laps to
the driver.
2-38 In this case the ultimate goal of Mr Van der Garde was to become a professional
Formula One driver, and the lost earnings from that career, on a loss of chance
basis, were assessed by the judge at US$100,000.69 The difficult question arising
here is whether that loss exhausts the claimant’s right to recovery, or whether there
might be some further recovery (as ultimately there was in this case) and if so on
what basis.
2-39 The approach taken by the judge, following that of the Court of Appeal in White
Arrow, was to find that the claimant was entitled to a free-standing claim for the
difference in market value between the service promised and that provided, quite
independently of the claim for the consequential lost profit.

66 See further especially Milner v Carnival plc [2010] 3 All ER 701 (CA) at paras 29 to 43, discussed

below at para 2-62.

67 Attorney General v Blake [2001] AC 268 (HL) 286.
68 Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB) at para

496 (Stadlen J). See also R Stevens, ‘Damages and the Right to Performance: A Golden Victory or Not?’
in J Neyers, R Bronaugh and S Pitel (eds), Exploring Contract Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2009) and
‘Rights and Other Things’ in A Robertson and D Nolan (eds), Rights and Private Law (Oxford, Hart
Publishing, 2011), whose theory supports a difference in market value award for both goods and services
cases, with a consequential loss award on top of that, and only the latter award being subject to reduction
by causation, mitigation and remoteness principles.
69 [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB) para 412.
Services to Commercial Claimants (Including Lost Management Time Claims) 37

The first essential point is that this was seen as a recovery of damages for ‘loss’, but 2-40
independently of the consequential loss of profit. Thus as the judge noted:
In Sir Thomas Bingham’s hypothetical example in White Arrow Express of the person who
agrees and pays in advance to be taught to play the violin by a world famous celebrity for
£500 per hour and is in the event taught by a musical non-entity whose charging rate is £25
per hour there was no suggestion that the measure of loss, namely the difference between
the price paid for (or if lower, the market value of what was contracted for) and the market
value of what was obtained, was dependent on proof that the Claimant had suffered con-
sequential financial loss in the form of the loss of opportunities of himself earning money
as a professional violinist. Loss of the enhanced service was itself a loss measurable by the
difference between the value of the celebrity lesson and the value of a musical non-entity
lesson.70
And further:
the Claimants are entitled to be compensated by an award of damages for the loss suffered
by them by reason of the failure of Spyker to provide 4,000-odd kilometres of test driving
and the associated paddock pass and sponsorship benefits. That loss is to be assessed by
reference to the value of the kilometres and associated benefits which should have been
but were not provided. The assessment of that value is a matter of evidence. (Emphasis
added.)71
For Stadlen J, the market value (of the laps, celebrity violin lessons, etc) was the 2-41
key. The price may provide evidence of the market value, but it is the market value
which governs. If the claimant had a good deal and underpaid then the damages for
non-supply would be greater than the price, and the reverse if a bad deal.72 For the
judge this US$1.865m award was an alternative, not an addition, to the award of
US$100,000 for the lost chance of financial profits.73 Stadlen J’s approach is con-
sistent with the obiter comments of the Court of Appeal in White Arrow, and the
dictum of Lord Nicholls in Attorney General v Blake.

(ii) Why the ‘Difference in Market Value’ Approach Is Wrong

However, although the result may be correct, the judge’s explanation (and the 2-42
obiter comments in White Arrow and Attorney General v Blake) are unworkable
and wrong. It departs too far from the ordinary concept of loss, and would have
a profoundly unsettling effect on the law. In sale of goods cases (from which the
analogy is drawn explicitly by Lord Nicholls in his dictum in Blake)74 the market
measure makes sense because the goods will be tradeable and often replaceable on
the market, so the market is the means of identifying an actual pecuniary loss, being
the additional cost of purchasing a replacement, or lost revenue from selling the
promised goods. This is not true of a service, which cannot be traded. As Walker

70 ibid para 438.

71 ibid para 487.
72 ibid paras 438 and 487.
73 ibid para 560.
74 This reasoning was adopted by Stadlen J at para 435.
 38 Non-Supply/Defective Supply/Delayed Supply

J observed in the Playup case,75 this is only an orthodox approach ‘in cases where
there is a market for a commodity or where the court is in a position to identify
both the realisable value of what was promised and the realisable value of what was
delivered’.
2-43 Moreover, if the market value measure is an independent measure, then it would
mean that in every contract case the claimant can, as an alternative to any lost
profit (of which there may not be any) or non-pecuniary loss, recover the differ-
ence in market value of the services. Does this mean that where a carrier is a week
late in delivering goods (cf Hadley v Baxendale), it is necessary to lead evidence as
to what the market value of carriage arriving a week late is as compared with the
faster carriage promised? If Mr Van der Garde had proven that he certainly lost
US$1.5m of Formula One earnings would he still be entitled to the difference in mar-
ket value of US$1.865m in the alternative? If a professional provides bad advice, can
the claimant recover the difference in the market value of the good advice and the
bad advice?
2-44 The confusion arises because of two particular features of the Van der Garde
case. The first is that the contract was about both financial and non-pecuniary
benefit. The second is that the financial loss was established by a loss of chance. If the
service had been construction or carriage provided to a claimant operating for profit,
and it could have been demonstrated that the claimant would have made a loss if
the defendant’s service had been performed, then the cases show that the claimant
could not have recovered damages, as it would be no worse off by the defendant
having refused to perform its services.76 In such a case it does not matter that the
defendant’s services had a market value, because the sole type of loss contemplated
(ie within the defendant’s assumed responsibility) is loss of profit. If there is a net loss
of revenue it is recoverable. If not, no damages are payable even if the defendant fails
to provide part of its service and for some reason the service has already been paid
for. Accordingly, wasted expenditure is unrecoverable where it is greater than the
lost revenue such that the award would put the claimant in a better position than it
would have been in but for the breach,77 and Wrotham Park reasonable fee damages
cannot be recovered if they would put the claimant in a better position than it would
have been but for the breach.78
2-45 However, Van der Garde was not merely a case of a commercial entity losing a
profitable opportunity. Mr Van der Garde was an individual and what was at stake
was his future lifestyle and career. In that situation, there may be non-pecuniary
value in the lifestyle and enjoyment during the period of training denied him, and in

75 Playup Interactive Entertainment (UK) Pty Ltd v Givemefootball Ltd [2011] EWHC 1980 (Comm)

at paras 269 and 272 (Walker J).

76 Bowlay Logging Ltd v Domtar Ltd (1978) 87 DLR (3d) 325 (British Columbia SC), aff ’d (1982)

135 DLR (3d) 179 and Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd v Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd [2012] 144
Con LR 72 (Roth J) appeal allowed on repudiation [2013] 4 All ER 377 (CA).
77 See below at paras 18-59 and following.
78 BGC Capital Markets (Switzerland) LLC v Rees [2011] EWHC 2009 (QB) at para 97 (Sir Raymond

Jack): ‘The intended function of the claim here is to avoid BGC’s problem that it cannot show that it has
suffered any loss because it has not in fact done so. In my judgment the award of release payment damages
is not available as a substitute for conventional damages to compensate a claimant for damage he has not
suffered. Nor should it be used to award a larger sum than a conventional calculation of loss provides’.
Services to Commercial Claimants (Including Lost Management Time Claims) 39

the improvements to his driving abilities. More importantly, Mr Van der Garde did
not only lose a relatively small chance of earning money if the Formula One career
had occurred (which, so the judge in that case assessed, came to US$100,000 when
the chance was multiplied by the amount of earnings), but also the same chance
of receiving during his career all the non-pecuniary benefits of a career as a rac-
ing driver, including the celebrity, prestige and fun, the attendant lifestyle, and the
satisfaction of being able to repay the confidence of his main backer, his girlfriend’s
father. (Such a non-pecuniary value ascribed to satisfaction gained from a particular
career or vocation is recognised in personal injury and employment discrimination
cases by an award for loss of ‘congenial employment’, which is quantified separately
from an award of loss of amenity or injury to feelings, and there is no reason why
it should not also be recoverable in the rest of contract law where it is part of the
contemplated non-pecuniary loss.)79
Finally, it may be said that there is a non-pecuniary value to self-esteem and sense 2-46
of self in being given the opportunity to succeed or fail by one’s own abilities, even
though the chance of success was small, and so the mathematical loss of chance
calculation seems particularly inadequate. Loss of chance cases throw up particular
difficulties, especially where non-pecuniary losses are involved, because most people
value a chance of a big win at higher than its mathematical value; damages for a lost
lottery ticket would otherwise be de minimis.80

(iii) The Objectives of the Service, and Means to Ends

The better view, therefore, is that Van der Garde is not a purely commercial case and 2-47
not a good example against which to develop principles applicable to commercial
disputes (and note that all the examples used by Stadlen J are non-commercial),
as the award in Van de Garde is an award of non-pecuniary loss, and the market
value measure provides at most some evidence of that loss.81 Stadlen J is right to
emphasise that what is important is not merely value but value to the claimant,82 as
to which the market value has little to say. Despite the emphasis on market value,
Stadlen J crucially and correctly accepts that it is only a proxy: ‘The loss is assessed
by the value of those lessons. The best evidence of that value is likely to be the
market price of driving lessons at the date of breach’.83 Thus, the market value of a

79 See, eg, Ministry of Defence v Cannock [1995] 2 All ER 449 (EAT). The award is rarely much more

than £10,000.
80 It is clear from the reasoning in Van der Garde [2010] EWHC 2373 at para 437 that the judge

thought the loss of chance aspect of the calculation in particular made the award of a mere US$100,000
unfair, ie although US$100,000 was a proper award for lost profits as a matter of law and arithmetic,
that did not change the fact that the laps ‘might have led to very significant earnings possibly running into
millions of pounds’ but now never will.
81 See below in paras 19-59 and following for discussion of the use of proxies in measuring

non-pecuniary loss.
82 Van der Garde [2010] EWHC 2373 at paras 424, 425, 428, 435, 437 and 458.
83 ibid para 458. That Stadlen J did not see market value as determinative is also clear from his

discussion of the City of New Orleans case at para 435; clearly the market value of the services provided
in that case was lower than the market value of the services promised. And see also para 436 which does
not seem to be focusing on market value.
 40 Non-Supply/Defective Supply/Delayed Supply

service is irrelevant in cases where the service is merely intended to serve the bottom
line, although the price may be a useful proxy for the lost revenue by means of
the presumption of breaking even. Similarly, where non-pecuniary loss is suffered
and not too remote, market value is relevant only as evidence of the amount of
non-pecuniary loss.84
2-48 In the case of driving lessons (or Formula One practice laps), it is a matter of inter-
pretation whether the defendant assumes responsibility only for the effect on the end
result (ie loss through failing the test/not becoming a Formula One driver), treating
the service only as a means to that end, or whether there is further non-pecuniary
benefit in having the lesson, improving abilities, and feeling that one has maximised
one’s chances, even if ultimately the result is not altered. Stadlen J is right that, if
the latter is the correct interpretation in a particular case, a claimant has suffered a
loss if it pays for 20 driving lessons and is only given six but was bound to fail the
test anyway (having failed ten times before).85 However, that loss is not necessarily
anything to do with the market value of the lessons.
2-49 Moreover, in some cases only the end result is contemplated as the value of the
service to the claimant, such as the profit in a purely financial case, or (possibly)
passing the driving test in the non-financial example being discussed. In such cases,
as Stadlen J correctly observes, if what is provided was ‘no less effective in secur-
ing the objective which the superior (or larger number of) services contracted for
were intended to achieve’ then there is no loss suffered if the breach does not cause
a failure of the contemplated goal. This applies in the driving test example whether
the claimant would have failed anyway, or whether the claimant passes despite the
breach.86 In these cases, again, market value has nothing to do with recovery.
2-50 This is exactly the problem that arose in the City of New Orleans v Firemen’s
Charitable Association87 case, where the fire service had contracted to have avail-
able on call a certain number of engines and personnel etc. If the only contemplated
value to the claimant of the fire-fighting service was the result of putting out all
fires occurring in New Orleans, then the defendant’s breach in providing too few
fire fighters is irrelevant save to the extent that as a result fires were not put out.88
If, however, it is contemplated that the City of New Orleans had some non-pecuniary
value (eg peace of mind of citizens, or public relations of the City, eg if it had told
the citizens how many fire-fighters it had procured) in having and knowing it had
the right number of fire fighters on standby at any one time, then even if all the fires
were put out the City may have suffered non-pecuniary loss. Stadlen J in Van der
Garde clearly thought that Mr van der Garde was in this latter category of there
being additional value quite apart from the result (of a profitable career), as can be
seen from his explanation of the City of New Orleans case and his distinguishing it
in the Van der Garde case.89 Security and safety cases such as City of New Orleans

84 For the discussion of remoteness and non-pecuniary loss see below at paras 19-36 to 19-41.
85 Van de Garde [2010] EWHC 2373 at para 438 (Stadlen J).
86 ibid, para 436.
87 City of New Orleans v Firemen’s Charitable Association 9 So 486 (1891).
88 As Stadlen J correctly observes in Van der Garde [2010] EWHC 2373 at para 435.
89 ibid paras 435 to 437.
Services to Commercial Claimants (Including Lost Management Time Claims) 41

provide a particular test of this distinction between result (the goal is merely related
to how many incidents there were) and process (the goal involves having the safety
mechanism in place).90
And, similarly, in the context of non-pure service cases, choices made in specifica- 2-51
tions for a building or other property can be ignored with impunity by builders if
they make no difference to the financial value of the resulting property and the only
contemplated objective of the service is the financial bottom line of the property, but
not if it is contemplated that the claimant ascribes aesthetic (non-pecuniary) value to
the preference quite apart from the financial bottom line, as in such cases the ignor-
ing of the specification causes the claimant loss.91 All turns on what types of value
to the claimant, and therefore loss, are within the risk and responsibility impliedly
assumed by the defendant: ie all turns on remoteness.

(iv) Market Value as a Proxy for Loss

We have seen above that a presumption that the claimant would have broken even, 2-52
and therefore that the revenue or value that would have been earned from a service
would at least equal the price of the service, is (quite properly) employed in assessing
damages where lost profits cannot directly be proven.92
Similarly, as is explained below in relation to non-pecuniary loss,93 the value of the 2-53
service to third parties (ie market value, as awarded in Van der Garde and discussed
in White Arrow) may also provide useful evidence of the value of the services.

D. Conclusion

In summary of the above, the better view is that: 2-54

(a) In claims for non- or defective provision of services to a business, the claimant
can prove that it suffered financial loss.
(b) Further, it is rebuttably presumed that the claimant would have earned from the
service revenue equal to the cost of the services. (This could have explained Van
der Garde, save that the presumption was rebutted in that case as the court was
able to quantify the lost profits at a loss of chance award of US$100,000.)94 It is
also rebuttably presumed that the claimant would have earned revenue equal to
the wages or other costs from third party employees or service-providers whose
efforts were diverted by the defendant’s breach.

90 cf goods case The Alecos M [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 120, where substantial damages were refused on

failure to provide a spare propeller. See paras 4-40 (and n 30) and para 4-263 below.
91 As in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 (HL), discussed below at

paras 19-19 and following.

92 See para 2-16 and following above.
93 See paras 19-32 to 19-33 below.
94 cf claims by commercial tenants for non-repair where no direct loss of profits can be proven,

discussed in paras 8-13 to 8-16 below.

 42 Non-Supply/Defective Supply/Delayed Supply

(c) The courts should be astute to recognise which cases are not purely commercial
cases, such that the contemplated interests protected include interests other
than the bottom line and so can give rise to recovery for non-pecuniary loss.
Such awards are discussed below in relation to commercial public bodies
and consumers in sections 3 and 4 in this chapter. Van der Garde is such a
case, as explained above. Non-pecuniary loss is discussed generally below in
chapter 19.
(d) There is no generally available award for the difference between the market
value of the service provided and that promised.

3. SERVICES TO PUBLIC BODIES

2-55 Where an employee or independent contractor provides services to a public body or

private non-profit-making body it will often be the case that the purpose of engaging
the services is not profit-related. In such cases it is not only impossible in a particular
case to show a financial loss from the non-provision or defective provision of the
service (unless additional costs, such as by engaging a replacement, were incurred),
but also to address financial loss in this way is entirely to disregard what the claim-
ant and the contract for services were all about.
2-56 Thus in Miles v Wakefield MDC, the Council was permitted to withhold a propor-
tion of a marriage Registrar’s wages (3/37) when he refused to officiate on Saturdays,
therefore being unavailable for three out of his weekly 37 hours. The House of Lords
held that the employer had suffered damage by not getting services from the Regis-
trar, and ‘A man who pays something for nothing truly incurs loss. The value of the
lost services cannot be less than the value attributable to the lost hours of work’.95
The House therefore valued those services as being the same as the price the Council
was paying the Registrar.96
2-57 Similarly, damages have been awarded for a schoolteacher’s refusal to take an extra
five pupils on top of his existing class of 31, the damages being measured as 5/36 of
his salary.97 Similar examples might include a third-party contractor engaged by a
public body to provide waste collection services, repair roads, fix gas leaks, build a
leisure centre etc.
2-58 Such public service contracts therefore share many features with consumer con-
tracts, and in such cases the value of the service must be non-pecuniary (although
the label ‘enjoyment’ is not appropriate in these cases, unlike many consumer cases).

95 Miles v Wakefield MDC [1987] AC 539, 560 (Lord Templeman).

96 See, eg, the discussions in Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd [2010]
EWHC 2373 (QB) at para 421 (Stadlen J) and Re Home & Office Fire Extinguishers Ltd, Rodliffe
v Rodliffe [2012] EWHC 917 (Ch) at para 68 (Strauss QC): ‘It was held that the Council could withhold
a proportionate amount of his salary, on the simple basis that it had lost the value of his services, quantify-
ing the loss by taking that proportion of his salary’.
97 Royle v Trafford Borough Council [1984] IRLR 184 (Park J).
 Services to Consumers 43

The price paid, or the relevant portion of it, can be used as a rebuttably presumed
proxy for the loss, because it must be presumed that the service was worth to the
claimant what the claimant was willing to pay for it.98

4. SERVICES TO CONSUMERS

Consumers pay for myriad services in their lives. A major category is professional 2-59
advice or assistance, especially in purchasing or selling a residence or preparing a will.
Residential leases may be the most expensive service a consumer pays for. Domestic
building works and healthcare are other major categories of consumer contract, as
are insurance (although it is debatable whether this is properly characterised as a
service) and holidays. The majority of other service contracts entered into by con-
sumers are for relatively small sums of money and are rarely litigated (at least to the
level of a reported decision), for example restaurant meals, entertainment, cleaning
services, car or other repairs, and public or private transport. Examples discussed in
the case law (often as illustrations) include delivery of an inferior rental car,99 service
of an inferior meal in a restaurant,100 music lessons provided by a musical non-entity
instead of by a world famous celebrity,101 or the provision of only six out of a block
booking of 20 driving lessons.102
No special principles apply to consumer cases, save that damages for non-pecuniary 2-60
loss, discussed in some detail in chapter 19 below, are far more readily available
than in non-consumer cases and may be the primary measure of damages where no
replacement is available. (The most commonly considered example is that of the
holiday.)

A. Difference in Market Value?

It has been suggested that a consumer claimant is entitled to recover the differ- 2-61
ence in market value between the service promised and that provided. In Jackson
v Horizon Holidays, Lord Denning MR suggested that the true principle from Jarvis
v Swan’s Tours103 permitted recovery of ‘not only the difference in value between

98 See below in paras 19-32 to 19-33, and see the discussion of awards to consumers in the next

section.
99 White Arrow Express Ltd v Lamey’s Distribution Ltd [1995] CLC 1251 quoted above at

para 2-35; Giedo van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB) at
para 458 (Stadlen J).
100 ibid.
101 ibid.
102 Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB) at

para 458 (Stadlen J). The actual facts of that case concerned Formula One test laps, and it is discussed
above in some detail in paras 2-37 to 2-41. The issue discussed there, where the education was for both
non-pecuniary reasons (self-improvement, enjoyment, satisfaction etc) and pecuniary reasons (ultimately
increasing employability or profitability), will arise in many education cases.
103 Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233 (CA).
 44 Non-Supply/Defective Supply/Delayed Supply

what was promised and what was obtained, but also damages for mental distress,
inconvenience, upset, disappointment and frustration caused by the loss of the
holiday’,104 and this has been interpreted by Bingham MR, commenting obiter in a
later (commercial) case, as permitting recovery of the difference between the market
value of the service provided and the market value of the service promised, whether
the service be a holiday, a meal or a violin lesson.105 In the Jackson case itself, the
Court approved the judge’s award on the basis that it was made up of £600 for
diminution in value of the service and £500 for mental distress.
2-62 More recently, in Milner v Carnival plc the claimants went on a world cruise that
involved noisy vibrations, were moved to an inferior cabin, and reasonably disem-
barked 28 days into a 106-day cruise.106 As well as an award of £8,500 each for
physical discomfort, distress and inconvenience, and after a refund for the unused
days, the Court of Appeal awarded £3,500 for
pecuniary loss—the diminution in value: the loss here is the monetary difference between
what was bought and what was supplied. The task is to assess the amount by which the
advertised holiday turned out to be less in money terms than the customer had paid for it.107
2-63 In Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd108 some of these
and various other consumer services (eg driving lessons) were discussed as leading
to such an award.
2-64 This issue is discussed above at paragraphs 2-35 and following in the context of
services to commercial entities. The conclusion reached there is that there can in law
be no award for the difference in market value of a service, only an award for loss. It
is quite proper to consider the value of a service to the claimant, and distress caused
to the claimant, but both are ways of assessing non-pecuniary and not pecuniary
loss.109 Accordingly, the entire awards in Jarvis and Jackson are best understood as
non-pecuniary loss awards, albeit that some of the loss may be ‘mental distress’ and
other aspects of the loss may be other types of non-pecuniary loss. The difference in
market value may, however, be a good starting point or proxy for the non-pecuniary
loss, as discussed in the residential lease context in paragraphs 8-17 and following
and more generally in non-pecuniary loss cases in paragraphs 19-59 and following.

104 Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468 (CA) 1472.
105 White Arrow Express Ltd v Lamey’s Distribution Ltd (1995) 15 Tr LR 69 (CA). See further the
extensive quotation above at text to n 60.
106 Milner v Carnival plc [2010] 3 All ER 701 (CA).
107 ibid, Ward LJ at para 29, also para 43.
108 Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team Ltd [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB) 496

(Stadlen J).
109 Contra Milner v Carnival plc [2010] 3 All ER 701 (CA) at paras 29 and 43 (Ward LJ), although

Ward LJ noted at para 43 that it would be duplicatory to award difference in value of a non-pecuniary
service and non-pecuniary loss, which demonstrates that, as in landlord breach cases, the true principle
is that of loss, and the difference in market or other value is just a proxy for or measure of the
non-pecuniary loss.