Mir Steel UK Ltd v Morris & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1397 (01 November 2012)

Mir Steel UK Ltd v Morris & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1397 (01 November 2012)

Clause 9.5 of the hive down agreement, interpreted in its commercial context, shifts to Mir Steel the entire risk and burden of any claim by Lictor in respect of the hot strip mill, including claims for inducing breach of contract and conspiracy, thereby precluding Mir Steel's claim for contribution against Alphasteel and the administrators.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1397
Parties
Appellant/first Defendant: Mir Steel UK Limited; Respondent/proposed Part 20 Defendant: Christopher Morris; Respondent/proposed Part 20 Defendant: Mark Fry; Respondent/proposed Part 20 Defendant: David Hudson; Respondent/proposed Part 20 Defendant: Alphasteel Limited (in liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Application to Join Part 20 Defendants
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contribution, Indemnity, Exclusion Clauses, Interpretation of Contracts, Conversion, Inducing Breach of Contract, Conspiracy, Administration and Liquidation
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Insolvency Law Contribution Indemnity Exclusion Clauses Interpretation of Contracts +4 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mir Steel UK Limited

Appellant/first Defendant

Christopher Morris

Respondent/proposed Part 20 Defendant

Mark Fry

Respondent/proposed Part 20 Defendant

David Hudson

Respondent/proposed Part 20 Defendant

Alphasteel Limited (in liquidation)

Respondent/proposed Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Application to Join Part 20 Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 9.5 of the hive down agreement precludes Mir Steel's claim for contribution against Alphasteel and the administrators for Lictor's claims of inducing breach of contract and conspiracy
  2. 2 Whether the rule in Said v. Butt prevents a claim against administrators for inducing breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 9.5 of the hive down agreement, interpreted in its commercial context, shifts to Mir Steel the entire risk and burden of any claim by Lictor in respect of the hot strip mill, including claims for inducing breach of contract and conspiracy, thereby precluding Mir Steel's claim for contribution against Alphasteel and the administrators.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mir Steel's application to join Alphasteel and the administrators as Part 20 defendants is refused
  • No order for contribution against Alphasteel or the administrators