Crooks v Newdigate Properties Ltd and Ors [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2009Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2009] EWCA Civ 283, 2 April 2009. A debtor who pays a debt owed but it and another debtor should make sure it reserves any right to be reimbursed by the other debtor. Case concerned the extent to which the discharge of a liability by defendants under a court order had the effect of also discharging the same liability of another defendant, who was not party to the order. The appellant (M) appealed against a declaration that the liability of the respondent (G) under a judgement had been discharged in full by payment made to the claimant by the other defendants pursuant to a consent order so that the judgement could not be enforced by M as assignee. C took action against N and others because he said he had not been paid a finder's fee. The individuals defended the claim, except G. When the individuals agreed to pay C, this did not apply to G. The individuals sought to pursue G for his liability. Held: appeal dismissed. The Court found for G because his liability had been paid by the defendants, and they could not pursue him because it was outside the statutory limitation period.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 147397-1001 |
[2009] EWCA Civ 283, 2 April 2009. A debtor who pays a debt owed but it and another debtor should make sure it reserves any right to be reimbursed by the other debtor. Case concerned the extent to which the discharge of a liability by defendants under a court order had the effect of also discharging the same liability of another defendant, who was not party to the order. The appellant (M) appealed against a declaration that the liability of the respondent (G) under a judgement had been discharged in full by payment made to the claimant by the other defendants pursuant to a consent order so that the judgement could not be enforced by M as assignee. C took action against N and others because he said he had not been paid a finder's fee. The individuals defended the claim, except G. When the individuals agreed to pay C, this did not apply to G. The individuals sought to pursue G for his liability. Held: appeal dismissed. The Court found for G because his liability had been paid by the defendants, and they could not pursue him because it was outside the statutory limitation period.