FG Whitley and Sons Co Ltd v Bickerton and others
Language: English Series: Structural Survey ; 11(2) Autumn 1992, 179-194(9)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: QBD 24 February 1992. In November 1973 planning permission was granted for mineral extraction which was vigourously opposed by neighbours and the local authority. The permission would lapse if operations did not start within five years. A scheme was submitted in July 1977 with the help of the defendant, B, a chartered surveyor. The local auhtority delayed consideration of the scheme and, as at 30 November 1978 there was no approved scheme, the permission lapsed. W sacked B and issued a writ claiming damages for breach of contract and in the tort of negligence. The question was whether the action was statute barred ie if they owed a contractual duty only. It was clear that any breach of contract must have pre-dated the termination of instructions, which is five years before the writ was issued so that course of action was by statute barred. The arguement therefore concentrated on the course of action in tort and therefore on the date damage was sustained. The allegations were that no| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS47330 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 61635-1001 |
QBD 24 February 1992. In November 1973 planning permission was granted for mineral extraction which was vigourously opposed by neighbours and the local authority. The permission would lapse if operations did not start within five years. A scheme was submitted in July 1977 with the help of the defendant, B, a chartered surveyor. The local auhtority delayed consideration of the scheme and, as at 30 November 1978 there was no approved scheme, the permission lapsed. W sacked B and issued a writ claiming damages for breach of contract and in the tort of negligence. The question was whether the action was statute barred ie if they owed a contractual duty only. It was clear that any breach of contract must have pre-dated the termination of instructions, which is five years before the writ was issued so that course of action was by statute barred. The arguement therefore concentrated on the course of action in tort and therefore on the date damage was sustained. The allegations were that no