Edwin Hill and Partners v First National Finance Corporation
Edwin Hill and Partners v First National Finance Corporation
- 1988
- New Law Journal 138(6374) 16 September 1988, 268-269(2) .
CA 22 July 1988. A claim for damages by the plaintiffs (E), against the defendants (N), for wrongful interference with their contract. Briefly, E were appointed as architects by a solicitor and property developer who was financed by N to purchase a property for development. Shortly after the purchase, the market collapsed and Office Development Permit s were introduced by the Government - this made it impossible for the developer to go ahead with his plans, and the interest charges on the loan made by N grew. In 1979, the market had improved, but the loan repayments had risen considerably. The developer could not proceed without further capital and N were reluctant to provide more money, so N chose instead to finance the construction themselves, and insisted that the developer who had no alternative, should dismiss E. E brought their claim against N. The judge held that four of five elements of the tort for interference were proved, but he held that E had failed to prove that N`s con
CA 22 July 1988. A claim for damages by the plaintiffs (E), against the defendants (N), for wrongful interference with their contract. Briefly, E were appointed as architects by a solicitor and property developer who was financed by N to purchase a property for development. Shortly after the purchase, the market collapsed and Office Development Permit s were introduced by the Government - this made it impossible for the developer to go ahead with his plans, and the interest charges on the loan made by N grew. In 1979, the market had improved, but the loan repayments had risen considerably. The developer could not proceed without further capital and N were reluctant to provide more money, so N chose instead to finance the construction themselves, and insisted that the developer who had no alternative, should dismiss E. E brought their claim against N. The judge held that four of five elements of the tort for interference were proved, but he held that E had failed to prove that N`s con