000			01241cam a2200217 4500
001			ABS68727
008			050304n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u128949
100			_aBingham, T.
245			_aException to the rule
260			_c2005
490			_aBuilding _v270(8370) 25 February 2005, 52-53(2)
520			_aDiscusses "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.
590			_aABS
650			_aGEMMA LTD V GIMSON AND OTHERS
650			_aLITIGATION
650			_aLIQUIDATION
650			_aCOSTS ORDERS
690			_aMANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
942			_n0
999			_c74882 _d74882