Lowfield Distribution Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd; and Barnsley MBC
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; (1988) CILL 482-429(2)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: ORC 19 May 1988 Action by warehouse men Lowfield (L) claiming damages for negligence in respect of the collapse in 1981 of the roof of their building. It had been built in 1969 and extended in 1974. Modern Engineering (M), the first defendants, were responsible for the steel work and Barnsley MBC (B), the second defendants, were the Building Regulations authority. M and B applied to dismiss the action for want of prosecution, alleging inordinate and inexcusable delay and the failure of L to apply for directions as required by RSC Order 36 Rule 6. L admitted delay and failure to issue a summons for directions, but contended that with regard to M the delay was excusable and that in any event it had not caused prejudice to M and B. ORC held that the four year delay by L before bringing the action was inordinate and inexcusable and L was also at fault for not entering the case in the ORC courts and not issuing a summons for directions. This delay by L had prejudiced the chance of a fair| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39483 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 17082-1001 |
ORC 19 May 1988 Action by warehouse men Lowfield (L) claiming damages for negligence in respect of the collapse in 1981 of the roof of their building. It had been built in 1969 and extended in 1974. Modern Engineering (M), the first defendants, were responsible for the steel work and Barnsley MBC (B), the second defendants, were the Building Regulations authority. M and B applied to dismiss the action for want of prosecution, alleging inordinate and inexcusable delay and the failure of L to apply for directions as required by RSC Order 36 Rule 6. L admitted delay and failure to issue a summons for directions, but contended that with regard to M the delay was excusable and that in any event it had not caused prejudice to M and B. ORC held that the four year delay by L before bringing the action was inordinate and inexcusable and L was also at fault for not entering the case in the ORC courts and not issuing a summons for directions. This delay by L had prejudiced the chance of a fair