Crooks v Newdigate Properties Ltd and Ors [electronic resource]
Crooks v Newdigate Properties Ltd and Ors [electronic resource]
- 2009
[2009] EWCA Civ 283, 2 April 2009. A debtor who pays a debt owed but it and another debtor should make sure it reserves any right to be reimbursed by the other debtor. Case concerned the extent to which the discharge of a liability by defendants under a court order had the effect of also discharging the same liability of another defendant, who was not party to the order. The appellant (M) appealed against a declaration that the liability of the respondent (G) under a judgement had been discharged in full by payment made to the claimant by the other defendants pursuant to a consent order so that the judgement could not be enforced by M as assignee. C took action against N and others because he said he had not been paid a finder's fee. The individuals defended the claim, except G. When the individuals agreed to pay C, this did not apply to G. The individuals sought to pursue G for his liability. Held: appeal dismissed. The Court found for G because his liability had been paid by the defendants, and they could not pursue him because it was outside the statutory limitation period.
CIVIL LIABILITY (CONTRIBUTION) ACT 1978
LIMITATION ACT 1980 S10
CROOKS V NEWDIGATE PROPERTIES LTD AND ORS
England and Wales--1543-
[2009] EWCA Civ 283, 2 April 2009. A debtor who pays a debt owed but it and another debtor should make sure it reserves any right to be reimbursed by the other debtor. Case concerned the extent to which the discharge of a liability by defendants under a court order had the effect of also discharging the same liability of another defendant, who was not party to the order. The appellant (M) appealed against a declaration that the liability of the respondent (G) under a judgement had been discharged in full by payment made to the claimant by the other defendants pursuant to a consent order so that the judgement could not be enforced by M as assignee. C took action against N and others because he said he had not been paid a finder's fee. The individuals defended the claim, except G. When the individuals agreed to pay C, this did not apply to G. The individuals sought to pursue G for his liability. Held: appeal dismissed. The Court found for G because his liability had been paid by the defendants, and they could not pursue him because it was outside the statutory limitation period.
CIVIL LIABILITY (CONTRIBUTION) ACT 1978
LIMITATION ACT 1980 S10
CROOKS V NEWDIGATE PROPERTIES LTD AND ORS
England and Wales--1543-