000			03614cad a22004455a 4500
001			L144853
008			080813e20081805xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u144853
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aLondon and Regional (St George's Court) Limited and the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2007] EWHC 526 (TCC), 18 March 2008. The case deals with preliminary issues concerning the refurbishment of an office building. The freehold owners of this property leased the building to the claimant company, London and Regional (L&R), with the agreement that (L&R) carries out a refurbishment of the property. (L&R) sublet the property to the Defendant, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), through an Agreement for Lease (AFL). (L&R) agreed with the (MoD) to carry out the refurbishment. (MoD) agreed to pay (L&R) for the cost of undertaking these tenant variations. (L&R) entered into a building contract as employer, with Shepherd Construction Limited (S) to carry out the work. At the end, (MoD) refused to pay L&R. On completion of the refurbishment works, (L&R) and (S) had a settlement agreement, whereby the parties evaluated the work undertaken. This agreement gave the right to (S) to pursue MoD in lieu of the employer L&R. (L&R) claims that the three variations are actually the (MoD)'s liability under the AFL. (MoD) disputes these claims. Held: the judge rejected the defence. He found that there were no provision for a certification. The defendant suffers no prejudice or detriment while (S) and (L&R) suffer real loss. The judge agreed that (L&R) had the legal right to pursue, prosecute and if necessary enforce the (MoD) claims, with (S) controlling that pursuit. The judge considered that there was no champerty as (S) had a legitimate financial interest in the case. The judge rejected the claim of abuse of process because the claims pursued were not speculative.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aOFFER-HOAR AND OTHERS V LARKSTORE LTD AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aLONDON AND REGIONAL (ST GEORGE'S COURT) LTD V THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
650	2	4	_aABRAHAM V THOMPSON
650	2	4	_aB R CANTRELL V WRIGHT AND FULLER LTD
650	2	4	_aBELGRAVIA PROPERTY CO LTD V S&R (LONDON) LTD AND TAYLOR WOODROW MANAGEMENT LTD
650	2	4	_aBOROUGH OF MERTON V LOWE
650	2	4	_aCOSTAIN BUILDING & CIVIL ENGINEERING V SCOTTISH RUGBY UNION [SRU]
650	2	4	_aCROWN ESTATES COMMISSIONERS V JOHN MOWLEM CO LTD
650	2	4	_aGUS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD V LITTLEWOODS MAIL ORDER SERVICES LTD
650	2	4	_aHENRY BOOT CONSTRUCTION V ALSTOM COMBINED CYCLES
650	2	4	_aHILL V ARCHBOLD
650	2	4	_aHUNTER V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE WEST MIDLANDS
650	2	4	_aHYDROCARBONS GREAT BRITAIN V CAMMELL LAIRD SHIPBUILDERS AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aJOHNSON V GORE WOOD AND CO
650	2	4	_aMANSELL V ROBINSON
650	2	4	_aMINSTER TRUST LTD V TRAPS TRACTORS LTD
650	2	4	_aNRHA V DEREK CROUCH
650	2	4	_aPAPERA TRADERS CO LTD V HYUNDAI (MERCHANT) MARINE CO LTD
650	2	4	_aR (FACTORTAME) LTD V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT (NO.8)
650	2	4	_aREES V DE BERNARDY
650	2	4	_aTOKEN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD V CHARLTON ESTATES LTD
650	2	4	_aTRENDTEX TRADING CORPORATION V CREDIT SUISSE
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2008/526.html _zView the case free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c80616 _d80616