London and Regional (St George's Court) Limited and the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence [electronic resource]
London and Regional (St George's Court) Limited and the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2007] EWHC 526 (TCC), 18 March 2008. The case deals with preliminary issues concerning the refurbishment of an office building. The freehold owners of this property leased the building to the claimant company, London and Regional (L&R), with the agreement that (L&R) carries out a refurbishment of the property. (L&R) sublet the property to the Defendant, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), through an Agreement for Lease (AFL). (L&R) agreed with the (MoD) to carry out the refurbishment. (MoD) agreed to pay (L&R) for the cost of undertaking these tenant variations. (L&R) entered into a building contract as employer, with Shepherd Construction Limited (S) to carry out the work. At the end, (MoD) refused to pay L&R. On completion of the refurbishment works, (L&R) and (S) had a settlement agreement, whereby the parties evaluated the work undertaken. This agreement gave the right to (S) to pursue MoD in lieu of the employer L&R. (L&R) claims that the three variations are actually the (MoD)'s liability under the AFL. (MoD) disputes these claims. Held: the judge rejected the defence. He found that there were no provision for a certification. The defendant suffers no prejudice or detriment while (S) and (L&R) suffer real loss. The judge agreed that (L&R) had the legal right to pursue, prosecute and if necessary enforce the (MoD) claims, with (S) controlling that pursuit. The judge considered that there was no champerty as (S) had a legitimate financial interest in the case. The judge rejected the claim of abuse of process because the claims pursued were not speculative.
OFFER-HOAR AND OTHERS V LARKSTORE LTD AND OTHERS
LONDON AND REGIONAL (ST GEORGE'S COURT) LTD V THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
ABRAHAM V THOMPSON
B R CANTRELL V WRIGHT AND FULLER LTD
BELGRAVIA PROPERTY CO LTD V S&R (LONDON) LTD AND TAYLOR WOODROW MANAGEMENT LTD
BOROUGH OF MERTON V LOWE
COSTAIN BUILDING & CIVIL ENGINEERING V SCOTTISH RUGBY UNION [SRU]
CROWN ESTATES COMMISSIONERS V JOHN MOWLEM CO LTD
GUS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD V LITTLEWOODS MAIL ORDER SERVICES LTD
HENRY BOOT CONSTRUCTION V ALSTOM COMBINED CYCLES
HILL V ARCHBOLD
HUNTER V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE WEST MIDLANDS
HYDROCARBONS GREAT BRITAIN V CAMMELL LAIRD SHIPBUILDERS AND OTHERS
JOHNSON V GORE WOOD AND CO
MANSELL V ROBINSON
MINSTER TRUST LTD V TRAPS TRACTORS LTD
NRHA V DEREK CROUCH
PAPERA TRADERS CO LTD V HYUNDAI (MERCHANT) MARINE CO LTD
R (FACTORTAME) LTD V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT (NO.8)
REES V DE BERNARDY
TOKEN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD V CHARLTON ESTATES LTD
TRENDTEX TRADING CORPORATION V CREDIT SUISSE
England and Wales--1543-
[2007] EWHC 526 (TCC), 18 March 2008. The case deals with preliminary issues concerning the refurbishment of an office building. The freehold owners of this property leased the building to the claimant company, London and Regional (L&R), with the agreement that (L&R) carries out a refurbishment of the property. (L&R) sublet the property to the Defendant, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), through an Agreement for Lease (AFL). (L&R) agreed with the (MoD) to carry out the refurbishment. (MoD) agreed to pay (L&R) for the cost of undertaking these tenant variations. (L&R) entered into a building contract as employer, with Shepherd Construction Limited (S) to carry out the work. At the end, (MoD) refused to pay L&R. On completion of the refurbishment works, (L&R) and (S) had a settlement agreement, whereby the parties evaluated the work undertaken. This agreement gave the right to (S) to pursue MoD in lieu of the employer L&R. (L&R) claims that the three variations are actually the (MoD)'s liability under the AFL. (MoD) disputes these claims. Held: the judge rejected the defence. He found that there were no provision for a certification. The defendant suffers no prejudice or detriment while (S) and (L&R) suffer real loss. The judge agreed that (L&R) had the legal right to pursue, prosecute and if necessary enforce the (MoD) claims, with (S) controlling that pursuit. The judge considered that there was no champerty as (S) had a legitimate financial interest in the case. The judge rejected the claim of abuse of process because the claims pursued were not speculative.
OFFER-HOAR AND OTHERS V LARKSTORE LTD AND OTHERS
LONDON AND REGIONAL (ST GEORGE'S COURT) LTD V THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
ABRAHAM V THOMPSON
B R CANTRELL V WRIGHT AND FULLER LTD
BELGRAVIA PROPERTY CO LTD V S&R (LONDON) LTD AND TAYLOR WOODROW MANAGEMENT LTD
BOROUGH OF MERTON V LOWE
COSTAIN BUILDING & CIVIL ENGINEERING V SCOTTISH RUGBY UNION [SRU]
CROWN ESTATES COMMISSIONERS V JOHN MOWLEM CO LTD
GUS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD V LITTLEWOODS MAIL ORDER SERVICES LTD
HENRY BOOT CONSTRUCTION V ALSTOM COMBINED CYCLES
HILL V ARCHBOLD
HUNTER V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE WEST MIDLANDS
HYDROCARBONS GREAT BRITAIN V CAMMELL LAIRD SHIPBUILDERS AND OTHERS
JOHNSON V GORE WOOD AND CO
MANSELL V ROBINSON
MINSTER TRUST LTD V TRAPS TRACTORS LTD
NRHA V DEREK CROUCH
PAPERA TRADERS CO LTD V HYUNDAI (MERCHANT) MARINE CO LTD
R (FACTORTAME) LTD V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT (NO.8)
REES V DE BERNARDY
TOKEN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD V CHARLTON ESTATES LTD
TRENDTEX TRADING CORPORATION V CREDIT SUISSE
England and Wales--1543-