000			01785cad a22001935a 4500
001			L144348
008			080714e20080609xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u144348
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aSutcliffe v Lloyd and another _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] EWCH 1329 (Ch).The case shows that the amount awarded by a court may be much less than a claimant might expect. The case also highlights the importance of drafting comprehensive dispute resolution clauses in construction contracts. The case was heard by the High Court on appeal from [2007] EWCA Civ 153 (L138245). Two property developers Sutcliffe (S) and Lloyd (L) worked together on a residential property development scheme, buying land and obtaining planning permission. S claimed a large sum in damages after L went ahead without him. The court had to determine the level of damages payable to a party for being incorrectly excluded from a development project. Held: S had been wrongly excluded from the final project. However, S had not funded the project which was not successful, or taken any risks. In addition, he had done other profitable work instead, and so was not justified in making a claim for an equal share of the profit. The court awarded compensation for monies spent on the project (i.e. minimum equity). This was a fraction of the amount claimed, and probably far less than the legal costs of bringing the case.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aSUTCLIFFE V LLOYD
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/1329.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.baiili.org...
942			_n0
999			_c80437 _d80437