King & Anor v Technology Piling Ltd & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1369 (25 July 2001)

King & Anor v Technology Piling Ltd & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1369 (25 July 2001)

The judge was correct in refusing permission to adduce fresh evidence post-judgment as there was insufficient justification for the failure to raise the issue at trial, but there is a real prospect of success on the argument that the uplift percentage should be applied to the credit sum due to TPL, warranting permission to appeal on that point.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1369
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Paul Anthony King; Applicant/claimant: Jayne Lesley King; Respondent/defendant: Technology Piling Limited; Respondent/defendant: Pearce Rougier Associates; Respondent/defendant: Harold A Pearce; Respondent/defendant: Excess Insurance Co Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Mitigation of Loss, Adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Building Contracts
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Assessment of Damages Mitigation of Loss Adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal Building Contracts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Anthony King

Applicant/claimant

Jayne Lesley King

Applicant/claimant

Technology Piling Limited

Respondent/defendant

Pearce Rougier Associates

Respondent/defendant

Harold A Pearce

Respondent/defendant

Excess Insurance Co Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in adding interest to the credit sum due to TPL instead of applying the uplift percentage used for repair costs
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission to adduce fresh evidence after judgment regarding the requirement for pile testing

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct in refusing permission to adduce fresh evidence post-judgment as there was insufficient justification for the failure to raise the issue at trial, but there is a real prospect of success on the argument that the uplift percentage should be applied to the credit sum due to TPL, warranting permission to appeal on that point.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on the uplift percentage issue relating to the credit sum due to TPL
  • Permission to appeal refused on the issue of adducing fresh evidence post-judgment