000			01947cad a22001935a 4500
001			L146250
008			081219e20081113xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u146250
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aDavid Peakman v Linbrooke Services Limited _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] EWCA Civ 1239, 13 November 2008. The case concerns proper allocation of claims. Linbrooke Services Limited (L) contracted with (P) to carry out work for it. P is a cable jointer. L was doing the work for the company Thales (T). P appealed against a decision to make no order for costs. P had claimed against L for no payment of work done, the costs of diesel fuel and of missing tools and damages for terminating contract without notice. L contested all the claims, and claimed that the contract was terminable at will. L counterclaimed damages for remedies to the defective works and for loss of contract with T because of the defective works. P obtained satisfaction, minus a reduction of 25%. L got 50% of his claims for defective work. P had to pay L £265 plus interest. P contested L's counterclaim about loss of profits on contracts. It claimed that, because of the T counterclaim, the case was allocated to the multi-track instead of the small claims track. "Held": P had to pay L. There was no evidence for the T counterclaim. So the case should have followed the small claims track. L's conduct brought to T more costs than necessary. The judge should have taken this into account when deciding about the costs. L should pay 50% of P's costs from the date the case was allocated to the multi-track.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aDAVID PEAKMAN V LINBROOKE SERVICES LIMITED
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1239.html _zView the case free of charge at www.bailli.org...
942			_n0
999			_c81101 _d81101