Presbar Diecastings Limited v GW Atkins & Sons Limited & Anor

Presbar Diecastings Limited v GW Atkins & Sons Limited & Anor

Presbar did not warrant the existence of binding purchase orders for new work in the order book; the APA and order book, interpreted objectively and in context, only warranted that Presbar genuinely expected such orders. Shield's counterclaims for breach of warranty regarding new work, machinery, and other items largely failed due to lack of evidence, improper quantification, or absence of breach. Only minor claims for machinery and scrap metal succeeded. Damages are measured by the difference between value as warranted and value in fact, not by subjective loss or alternative valuation methods.

Parties
Claimant: Presbar Diecastings Limited; First Defendant: G W Atkins & Sons Limited; Second Defendant: C R Shield Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim and Counterclaim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in full, counterclaims allowed in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Warranty, Asset Purchase Agreement, Damages, Interpretation of Contracts, Sale of Goods Act, Set Off, Rectification
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Breach of Warranty Asset Purchase Agreement Damages Interpretation of Contracts Sale of Goods Act +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Presbar Diecastings Limited

Claimant

G W Atkins & Sons Limited

First Defendant

C R Shield Holdings Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim and Counterclaim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of Asset Purchase Agreement regarding 'uncompleted orders' and 'new work'
  2. 2 Whether warranties in the APA were breached regarding order book and machinery
  3. 3 Measure and quantification of damages for breach of warranty

Ratio Decidendi

Presbar did not warrant the existence of binding purchase orders for new work in the order book; the APA and order book, interpreted objectively and in context, only warranted that Presbar genuinely expected such orders. Shield's counterclaims for breach of warranty regarding new work, machinery, and other items largely failed due to lack of evidence, improper quantification, or absence of breach. Only minor claims for machinery and scrap metal succeeded. Damages are measured by the difference between value as warranted and value in fact, not by subjective loss or alternative valuation methods.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in full, counterclaims allowed in part

Orders

  • Presbar awarded unpaid balance of purchase price less set-offs for established counterclaims totalling £7,059
  • Shield awarded £250 for machinery warranty breach (Trim Press 8)