Image from Google Jackets

Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc, WSP London Ltd and Aspinwall and Co Ltd [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWCA Civ 1260, 28 November 2007. Considers whether a client's actions amounted to an abuse of power, when the client initially sued a contractor but not its clients, but then later sued the clients as well. Building company (H) had built stores for appellant company (Al) and another retailer (B). H and the respondent consultants (W and As) gave warranties under seal to say they had properly performed their obligations. Subsequently the stores suffered from subsidence. Al initially brought proceedings against H, which went into administration. Meanwhile B also brought proceedings against H, W and As. Al obtained a judgment against H and tried to enforce it against H's liability insurers. The primary layer insurers indemnified H but the excess layer insurers declined to pay. Al then issued proceedings against W and As alleging breach of the warranties. Al's claims against W and As were struck out on the grounds that Al should have pursued them in the original action. Al appealed. "Held": appeal allowed. Al's conduct was not an abuse of process as Al had not previously sued the consultants and Al's approach was deemed to be fair.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 142660-2001

[2007] EWCA Civ 1260, 28 November 2007. Considers whether a client's actions amounted to an abuse of power, when the client initially sued a contractor but not its clients, but then later sued the clients as well. Building company (H) had built stores for appellant company (Al) and another retailer (B). H and the respondent consultants (W and As) gave warranties under seal to say they had properly performed their obligations. Subsequently the stores suffered from subsidence. Al initially brought proceedings against H, which went into administration. Meanwhile B also brought proceedings against H, W and As. Al obtained a judgment against H and tried to enforce it against H's liability insurers. The primary layer insurers indemnified H but the excess layer insurers declined to pay. Al then issued proceedings against W and As alleging breach of the warranties. Al's claims against W and As were struck out on the grounds that Al should have pursued them in the original action. Al appealed. "Held": appeal allowed. Al's conduct was not an abuse of process as Al had not previously sued the consultants and Al's approach was deemed to be fair.