Image from Google Jackets

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.
Holdings
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.