Dandara Holdings Ltd v Co-Operative Retail Services Ltd & Anor

Dandara Holdings Ltd v Co-Operative Retail Services Ltd & Anor

Although there was a technical breach of the Exclusivity Agreement by the Defendants in February and March, the breaches did not cause the Claimant any loss. The Claimant did not lose a real or substantial chance of purchasing the property as the Defendants would have decided to remarket the property regardless of any breach. The Claimant is not entitled to damages for loss of chance but is entitled to a limited indemnity for abortive costs under the agreement.

Parties
Claimant: Dandara Holdings Limited; First Defendant: Co-Operative Retail Services Limited; Second Defendant: Co-Operative Group (CWS) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/commercial) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for damages dismissed; indemnity claim partially allowed
Legal Topics
Exclusivity Agreements, Breach of Contract, Damages, Indemnity, Causation, Loss of Chance
Contract Law Commercial Law Exclusivity Agreements Breach of Contract Damages Indemnity Causation Loss of Chance

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dandara Holdings Limited

Claimant

Co-Operative Retail Services Limited

First Defendant

Co-Operative Group (CWS) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/commercial) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants breached the Exclusivity Agreement with the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether any breach caused loss to the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages for loss of chance

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a technical breach of the Exclusivity Agreement by the Defendants in February and March, the breaches did not cause the Claimant any loss. The Claimant did not lose a real or substantial chance of purchasing the property as the Defendants would have decided to remarket the property regardless of any breach. The Claimant is not entitled to damages for loss of chance but is entitled to a limited indemnity for abortive costs under the agreement.

Court Disposition

Claim for damages dismissed; indemnity claim partially allowed

Orders

  • Claim for damages for loss of chance dismissed
  • Claimant awarded £22,502.77 under the indemnity clause, less £22,000 already paid, with interest on the balance