Leicester Circuits Ltd. v Coates Brothers Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 290 (05 March 2003)

Leicester Circuits Ltd. v Coates Brothers Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 290 (05 March 2003)

The Court of Appeal held that Leicester Circuits Ltd failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the T4 ink was unfit for its purpose in a manner that caused the alleged losses. The evidence showed only intermittent failures, and expert testimony did not establish that the ink was inherently defective....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 290
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Leicester Circuits Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Coates Brothers Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for Leicester Circuits Ltd set aside.
Legal Topics
Fitness for Purpose, Breach of Contract, Sale of Goods, Expert Evidence, Damages
Contract Law Commercial Law Product Liability Fitness for Purpose Breach of Contract Sale of Goods Expert Evidence Damages

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leicester Circuits Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Coates Brothers Plc

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the T4 ink supplied by Coates Brothers Plc was unfit for its purpose under the contract with Leicester Circuits Ltd
  2. 2 Whether Leicester Circuits Ltd proved that losses were caused by the ink's unfitness
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in finding for Leicester on fitness for purpose and in rejecting certain heads of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Leicester Circuits Ltd failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the T4 ink was unfit for its purpose in a manner that caused the alleged losses. The evidence showed only intermittent failures, and expert testimony did not establish that the ink was inherently defective. The judge's reliance on changes to other inks and outsider evidence was insufficient. The appeal was allowed and the judgment for Leicester was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for Leicester Circuits Ltd set aside.

Orders

  • Original judgment for Leicester Circuits Ltd reversed.
  • No damages awarded to Leicester Circuits Ltd.