Normid Housing Association Ltd v R John Ralphs, John S Mansell, Ralphs & Mansell and Assicurazioni Generali SpA
Normid Housing Association Ltd v R John Ralphs, John S Mansell, Ralphs & Mansell and Assicurazioni Generali SpA
- 1989
- Lloyd's Law Reports (1989) 1 LLR 265-279(15) .
CA 5 July 1988. The plaintiffs (N) were a housing association which acquired 350 freehold properties to refurbish and let. The defendants (R&M) were engaged as architects under 17 contracts of engagement . R&M had an insurance policy which indemnified them against loss. In November 1983 N informed R&M of a claim in respect of roof defects. The insurers (A) were informed. Further claims were made in respect of damp and defective roofs and a writ was issued by N claiming negligence and breach of contract against R&M; another being issued in April 1986 claiming £5.7m. R&M gave notice to N of a payment into court of £150,000; this proved unacceptable. A further £100,000 and costs was added by A but this would end R&M`s claim on A. In April 1988 N claimed for an injunction restraining R&M from entering into that settlement as they would be deprived of their statutory right to claim against A. It was held that N had no legal right to prevent the proposed settlement between N and R&M. The i
CA 5 July 1988. The plaintiffs (N) were a housing association which acquired 350 freehold properties to refurbish and let. The defendants (R&M) were engaged as architects under 17 contracts of engagement . R&M had an insurance policy which indemnified them against loss. In November 1983 N informed R&M of a claim in respect of roof defects. The insurers (A) were informed. Further claims were made in respect of damp and defective roofs and a writ was issued by N claiming negligence and breach of contract against R&M; another being issued in April 1986 claiming £5.7m. R&M gave notice to N of a payment into court of £150,000; this proved unacceptable. A further £100,000 and costs was added by A but this would end R&M`s claim on A. In April 1988 N claimed for an injunction restraining R&M from entering into that settlement as they would be deprived of their statutory right to claim against A. It was held that N had no legal right to prevent the proposed settlement between N and R&M. The i