R L Polk and Co (Great Britain) Ltd and another v Edwin Hill and Partners
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8818) 7 May 1988 71-76(4)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: ORC 13 January 1988. A preliminary issue arising in the second of two actions against Edwin Hill and Partners (EH), in which the plaintiffs were an American corporation (A), parent of the English company (B). The present litigation arose as a result of a defective perimeter wall which later collapsed, and an allegation of negligence made against EH retained for the development of land owned by (B). The land which contained the wall, was acquired by (A) from (B) subsequent to the date on which the damage had occurred. (B) had, therefore, acquired a cause of action prior to acquisition of the land by (A). Therefore, in view of the fact that damage occured to the wall before it was owned or occupied by (A), the issue arose as to whether (A) had any cause of action for negligence or breach of duty against EH. The judge considered a number of authorities and concluded there was no effective assignment of a right of action. Judgment for EH.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39178 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 14840-1001 |
ORC 13 January 1988. A preliminary issue arising in the second of two actions against Edwin Hill and Partners (EH), in which the plaintiffs were an American corporation (A), parent of the English company (B). The present litigation arose as a result of a defective perimeter wall which later collapsed, and an allegation of negligence made against EH retained for the development of land owned by (B). The land which contained the wall, was acquired by (A) from (B) subsequent to the date on which the damage had occurred. (B) had, therefore, acquired a cause of action prior to acquisition of the land by (A). Therefore, in view of the fact that damage occured to the wall before it was owned or occupied by (A), the issue arose as to whether (A) had any cause of action for negligence or breach of duty against EH. The judge considered a number of authorities and concluded there was no effective assignment of a right of action. Judgment for EH.