Percy v White & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 493 (12 April 2022)

Percy v White & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 493 (12 April 2022)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in law by treating section 1(4) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 as precluding Mr Mayall from contesting negligence and causation in the contribution proceedings. The judge should have determined on the evidence whether Mr Mayall was negligent and whether any negligence was causative of loss. The earlier permission judgment was not determinative of negligence, and the reflective loss principle did not apply to bar the claim. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration of negligence and causation.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 493
Parties
Former Claimant: Richard Terence Percy; Defendant / Additional Claimant / Respondent to the Appeal: Merriman White; Defendant / Additional Claimant / Respondent to the Appeal: Raymond St John Murphy; Additional Defendant / Appellant to the Appeal: David Mayall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (business and Property Courts, Business List (ch D))
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration of negligence and causation.
Legal Topics
Contribution Claims, Reflective Loss, Derivative Actions, Causation in Negligence, Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978, Professional Duties of Barristers and Solicitors
Professional Negligence Company Law Civil Procedure Contribution Claims Reflective Loss Derivative Actions Causation in Negligence Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 +1 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 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Terence Percy

Former Claimant

Merriman White

Defendant / Additional Claimant / Respondent to the Appeal

Raymond St John Murphy

Defendant / Additional Claimant / Respondent to the Appeal

David Mayall

Additional Defendant / Appellant to the Appeal

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (business and Property Courts, Business List (ch D))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 1(4) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 precludes the contribution defendant from raising defences of negligence and causation in contribution proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in treating the earlier permission judgment as determinative of negligence
  3. 3 Whether the reflective loss principle applied to bar the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in law by treating section 1(4) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 as precluding Mr Mayall from contesting negligence and causation in the contribution proceedings. The judge should have determined on the evidence whether Mr Mayall was negligent and whether any negligence was causative of loss. The earlier permission judgment was not determinative of negligence, and the reflective loss principle did not apply to bar the claim. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration of negligence and causation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration of negligence and causation.

Orders

  • Set aside the order of Chief Insolvency Judge Briggs dated 1 February 2021.
  • Remit the contribution claim for reconsideration of negligence and causation.