Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited and Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Ltd (No. 6)
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited and Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Ltd (No. 6)
- 2008
[2008] EWHC 2220 (TCC), 29 September 2008. The case discusses whether a main contractor could be entitled to damages for breach of contract of a subcontractor. Multiplex Constructions Limited (M), main contractor for the construction of the National Wembley Stadium, contracted with Cleveland Bridge (C) for steel work. M claimed damages against C for breach of contract. Following several disagreements, M reduced C's obligations and fixed a new price for works to be completed by C. C parted from M. The Court of Appeal ruled that C was responsible for breach of contract. The court had to decide: which amount was to be paid by each party to the other; the acceptability of a witness' evidence; and the validity of M's claims for damages. Held: The witness was just a factual witness. M had rights to recover damages for defects. C had to repay M for overpayment for works done. Because of the repudiation, M had gained profit as payments made to other contractor (H) replacing M were cheaper. When C repudiated, M had already decided to part and contracted with H to replace C, therefore M did not suffer loss of production nor delay to the project. C had to repay M damages for breach of contract and interest. See also L133948 and L145615
MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS (UK) LTD V CLEVELAND BRIDGE UK LTD AND ANOTHER
LUSTY ARCHITECTS V FINSBURY SECURITIES
DN V GREENWICH LBC
MAREDELANTO COMPANIA NAVIERA SA V BERGBAU-HANDEL GMBH (THE MIHALIS ANGELOS)
GOLDEN STRAIT CORPORATION V NIPPON YUSEN KUBISHKA KAISHA
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWHC 2220 (TCC), 29 September 2008. The case discusses whether a main contractor could be entitled to damages for breach of contract of a subcontractor. Multiplex Constructions Limited (M), main contractor for the construction of the National Wembley Stadium, contracted with Cleveland Bridge (C) for steel work. M claimed damages against C for breach of contract. Following several disagreements, M reduced C's obligations and fixed a new price for works to be completed by C. C parted from M. The Court of Appeal ruled that C was responsible for breach of contract. The court had to decide: which amount was to be paid by each party to the other; the acceptability of a witness' evidence; and the validity of M's claims for damages. Held: The witness was just a factual witness. M had rights to recover damages for defects. C had to repay M for overpayment for works done. Because of the repudiation, M had gained profit as payments made to other contractor (H) replacing M were cheaper. When C repudiated, M had already decided to part and contracted with H to replace C, therefore M did not suffer loss of production nor delay to the project. C had to repay M damages for breach of contract and interest. See also L133948 and L145615
MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS (UK) LTD V CLEVELAND BRIDGE UK LTD AND ANOTHER
LUSTY ARCHITECTS V FINSBURY SECURITIES
DN V GREENWICH LBC
MAREDELANTO COMPANIA NAVIERA SA V BERGBAU-HANDEL GMBH (THE MIHALIS ANGELOS)
GOLDEN STRAIT CORPORATION V NIPPON YUSEN KUBISHKA KAISHA
England and Wales--1543-