Terence Welford (1) Colin Phillips (2) IOD Skip Hire Limited V EDF Energy Networks (LPN) PLC [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Summary: [2007] EWCA Civ 293, 3 April 2007. Considers whether a claim for loss of business profits can be made if the business had not yet begun trading. E submitted that as operations had not yet begun, the claim to loss of earnings was too remote in law. W had purchased land for use by their business. After obtaining planning permission they had begun development and started preparatory work. They were then made aware of the presence of electricity cables beneath it and requested their removal by the appellant. E obtained a wayleave for their retention. The effect of this was to limit construction work and therefore the development of the business. "Held": It was found that the respondents? business, by making investment of the land to make it fit for purpose and by using it for part of its purpose, had invested value in the land. Therefore its disturbance was sufficient to warrant a claim for loss of earnings. The appeal was dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 138125-1001 |
[2007] EWCA Civ 293, 3 April 2007. Considers whether a claim for loss of business profits can be made if the business had not yet begun trading. E submitted that as operations had not yet begun, the claim to loss of earnings was too remote in law. W had purchased land for use by their business. After obtaining planning permission they had begun development and started preparatory work. They were then made aware of the presence of electricity cables beneath it and requested their removal by the appellant. E obtained a wayleave for their retention. The effect of this was to limit construction work and therefore the development of the business. "Held": It was found that the respondents? business, by making investment of the land to make it fit for purpose and by using it for part of its purpose, had invested value in the land. Therefore its disturbance was sufficient to warrant a claim for loss of earnings. The appeal was dismissed.