Leicester Circuits Ltd. v Coates Brothers Plc

Leicester Circuits Ltd. v Coates Brothers Plc

Leicester failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the T4 ink was unfit for its purpose or that their losses were caused by such unfitness. The evidence showed intermittent and varying problems, with expert evidence suggesting processing issues were more likely to blame. The judge's reasoning was flawed, and the appeal was allowed.

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; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fitness for Purpose, Breach of Contract, Exclusion Clauses, Damages, Burden of Proof
Contract Law Commercial Law Fitness for Purpose Breach of Contract Exclusion Clauses Damages Burden of Proof

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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 was unfit for its purpose under the contract with Leicester
  2. 2 Whether Leicester proved on a balance of probabilities that their losses were caused by the unfitness of the ink
  3. 3 Whether exclusion clauses in Coates' terms of business excluded liability for loss of profit and other damages

Ratio Decidendi

Leicester failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the T4 ink was unfit for its purpose or that their losses were caused by such unfitness. The evidence showed intermittent and varying problems, with expert evidence suggesting processing issues were more likely to blame. The judge's reasoning was flawed, and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leicester to pay Coates’ costs up to 1st January 2002; no order for costs thereafter
  • Leicester to pay Coates’ costs of the appeal