Haden Young Limited v Laing O'Rourke Midlands Limited [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s):- PAGNAN SPA V FEED PRODUCTS LTD
- G PERCY TRENTHAM LTD V ARCHITAL LUXFER LTD
- BROGDEN V METROPOLITAN RAILWAY
- NEW ZEALAND SHIPPING CO LTD V A M SATTERTHWAITE & CO LTD
- GIBSON V MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL
- BRITISH BANK FOR FOREIGN TRADE LTD V NOVINEX
- TROLLOPE AND COLLS V ATOMIC POWER CONSTRUCTION
- YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES V TAYLOR WOODROW CONSTRUCTION NORTHERN AND OTHERS
- DAY MORRIS ASSOCIATES V VOYCE AND ANOTHER
- JARVIS INTERIORS LIMITED V GALLIARD HOMES LIMITED
- TRENTHAM V ARCHITAL LUXFER
- MITSUI BABCOCK ENERGY LTD V JOHN BROWN ENGINEERING LTD
- SMITHKLINE BEECHAM V APOTEX EUROPE
- BAIRD TEXTILES V MARKS & SPENCER PLC
- STENT FOUNDATIONS LTD V CARILLION CONSTRUCTION (CONTRACTS) LTD
- GREENWOOD V MARTIN'S BANK
- AMALGAMATED PROPERTY CO V TEXAS BANK
- STENT FOUNDATIONS LTD V CARILLION CONSTRUCTION (CONTRACTS) LTD
- WHITTAL BUILDERS COMPANY LTD V CHESTER LE STREET DC
- JONES ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD V BALFOUR BEATTY BUILDING LTD
- HISCOX V OUTHWAITE
- NORWEGIAN AMERICAN CRUISES A/S V PAUL MUNDY
- CROWN HOUSE ENGINEERING LTD V AMEC PROJECTS LTD
- BRITISH STEEL CORP V CLEVELAND BRIDGE & ENGINEERING CO LTD
- England and Wales -- 1543-
- BUILT ENVIRONMENT-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 145108-1001 |
[2008] EWHC 1016 (TCC), 8 May 2008. The case turned around the formation of contract and the danger of proceeding with work before a contract has been concluded. Laing O'Rourke (L), main contractor, was in charge of the design and construction project of the Ricoh Arena in Coventry, and Haden Young (H), a subcontractor, of the mechanical and electrical works. A dispute arose between them as to the existence of as sub contract. For (H), there was no contract as all essential terms were not agreed but it had completed the work and been paid by reference to the terms of a side subcontract. For (L), a contract had been made even though there was no executed contract. Held: The parties had approached argument on both the liability for consequential loss and the limit of liability under the warranties. They had not set a limit of liability for consequential loss under the subcontract and by evidence, for both parties, this was essential to the formation of a contract. The judge decided that the scope of works was not essential to the formation f a contract. Even without contract, (H) was entitled to reasonable remuneration under a quantum merit for works carried out.