David Peakman v Linbrooke Services Limited [electronic resource]
David Peakman v Linbrooke Services Limited [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] EWCA Civ 1239, 13 November 2008. The case concerns proper allocation of claims. Linbrooke Services Limited (L) contracted with (P) to carry out work for it. P is a cable jointer. L was doing the work for the company Thales (T). P appealed against a decision to make no order for costs. P had claimed against L for no payment of work done, the costs of diesel fuel and of missing tools and damages for terminating contract without notice. L contested all the claims, and claimed that the contract was terminable at will. L counterclaimed damages for remedies to the defective works and for loss of contract with T because of the defective works. P obtained satisfaction, minus a reduction of 25%. L got 50% of his claims for defective work. P had to pay L £265 plus interest. P contested L's counterclaim about loss of profits on contracts. It claimed that, because of the T counterclaim, the case was allocated to the multi-track instead of the small claims track. "Held": P had to pay L. There was no evidence for the T counterclaim. So the case should have followed the small claims track. L's conduct brought to T more costs than necessary. The judge should have taken this into account when deciding about the costs. L should pay 50% of P's costs from the date the case was allocated to the multi-track.
DAVID PEAKMAN V LINBROOKE SERVICES LIMITED
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWCA Civ 1239, 13 November 2008. The case concerns proper allocation of claims. Linbrooke Services Limited (L) contracted with (P) to carry out work for it. P is a cable jointer. L was doing the work for the company Thales (T). P appealed against a decision to make no order for costs. P had claimed against L for no payment of work done, the costs of diesel fuel and of missing tools and damages for terminating contract without notice. L contested all the claims, and claimed that the contract was terminable at will. L counterclaimed damages for remedies to the defective works and for loss of contract with T because of the defective works. P obtained satisfaction, minus a reduction of 25%. L got 50% of his claims for defective work. P had to pay L £265 plus interest. P contested L's counterclaim about loss of profits on contracts. It claimed that, because of the T counterclaim, the case was allocated to the multi-track instead of the small claims track. "Held": P had to pay L. There was no evidence for the T counterclaim. So the case should have followed the small claims track. L's conduct brought to T more costs than necessary. The judge should have taken this into account when deciding about the costs. L should pay 50% of P's costs from the date the case was allocated to the multi-track.
DAVID PEAKMAN V LINBROOKE SERVICES LIMITED
England and Wales--1543-