Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited and Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Ltd (No.7)
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited and Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Ltd (No.7)
- 2008
[2008] EWHC 2280 (TCC) , 29 September 2008. The case turned around the determination of costs of damages for breach of contract and for legal costs. Multiplex Constructions Limited (M), main contractor for the construction of the National Wembley Stadium, contracted with Cleveland Bridge (C) for steel work. Following several disagreements, C parted from M. M claimed damages against C for breach of contract. The Court of Appeal ruled that C repudiated the sub-contract. Therefore, C had to pay M damages for breach of contract and interest. M claimed that C should pay all the legal costs. C claimed that M should pay a certain amount of the costs. Held: M was entitled to an order for costs. A final determination of costs should be decided after examination of the parties' attitude. Both parties acted in a wrong way. C, as a debtor, should have made an offer to M to settle the issues. C had to pay M 20% of the legal costs. Each side should bear its own costs in relation to preliminary issue 11. See also L133948 and L145611
MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS (UK) LTD V CLEVELAND BRIDGE UK LTD AND ANOTHER
CARVER V BAA PLC
HALL V STONE
STRAKER V TUDOR ROSE
ASPIN V METRIC GROUP LIMITED
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC V KOTONOU
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWHC 2280 (TCC) , 29 September 2008. The case turned around the determination of costs of damages for breach of contract and for legal costs. Multiplex Constructions Limited (M), main contractor for the construction of the National Wembley Stadium, contracted with Cleveland Bridge (C) for steel work. Following several disagreements, C parted from M. M claimed damages against C for breach of contract. The Court of Appeal ruled that C repudiated the sub-contract. Therefore, C had to pay M damages for breach of contract and interest. M claimed that C should pay all the legal costs. C claimed that M should pay a certain amount of the costs. Held: M was entitled to an order for costs. A final determination of costs should be decided after examination of the parties' attitude. Both parties acted in a wrong way. C, as a debtor, should have made an offer to M to settle the issues. C had to pay M 20% of the legal costs. Each side should bear its own costs in relation to preliminary issue 11. See also L133948 and L145611
MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS (UK) LTD V CLEVELAND BRIDGE UK LTD AND ANOTHER
CARVER V BAA PLC
HALL V STONE
STRAKER V TUDOR ROSE
ASPIN V METRIC GROUP LIMITED
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC V KOTONOU
England and Wales--1543-