Exception to the rule
Series: Building ; 270(8370) 25 February 2005, 52-53(2)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Discusses "Gemma Ltd v Gimson and others" ([2005] EWHC 69 (TCC), unreported). Mr and Mrs Gimson had employed Gemma Ltd to build their new luxury dwelling but there were disagreements and Gemma stopped work, claiming payment for achieved completion. Mr and Mrs Gimson counter claimed for damages. This was unusual as Gemma had gone into liquidation; the usual rule that applies is that a company is a separate entity from the individuals associated with it. However, in this case the claimant builders had clearly lost the sympathy of the court, and the judge concluded that the owners of the company had unreasonably pursued the litigation.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS68727 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 128949-1001 |
Discusses "Gemma Ltd v Gimson and others" ([2005] EWHC 69 (TCC), unreported). Mr and Mrs Gimson had employed Gemma Ltd to build their new luxury dwelling but there were disagreements and Gemma stopped work, claiming payment for achieved completion. Mr and Mrs Gimson counter claimed for damages. This was unusual as Gemma had gone into liquidation; the usual rule that applies is that a company is a separate entity from the individuals associated with it. However, in this case the claimant builders had clearly lost the sympathy of the court, and the judge concluded that the owners of the company had unreasonably pursued the litigation.