Assessment of costs in exaggerated claims
A recent High Court decision in Brit Inns v BDW Trading Ltd considered the circumstances in which a successful claimant would have to pay the majority of the defendant’s costs.
Claimants Brit Inns Limited instructed the defendant company BDW Trading Limited to build a new restaurant, which later flooded as a result of the defendant’s work. The claimants made a subrogated claim against the defendant for £660,000 in respect of insured losses (the main action), and also claimed £522,000 in respect of uninsured losses (the uninsured claim).
The defendant did not dispute liability, but did dispute the level of damages. In the end, the Court awarded the claimants only £157,467 in the main claim; and £16,403 in the uninsured claim - approximately 25% and 3% of the sums claimed respectively…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Shoosmiths briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Shoosmiths
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Shoosmiths
Execution of an agreement is the final stage in an often lengthy process of detailed drafting and negotiation. Getting it wrong may result in invalidity and unenforceability.
Finding solutions to flooding is a matter of high importance for the government, driving changes in the law relating to foul and surface water drainage.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Compliance and corporate governance codes for large financial institutions will undoubtedly include provisions to regulate high pay in the future
There’s more to the ABS model than attracting the man in the street and procuring external investment. Partners at the big corporate firms, take note…