Liberty Mercian Ltd v Cuddy Civil Engineering Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 2688 (TCC) (03 September 2013)

Liberty Mercian Ltd v Cuddy Civil Engineering Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 2688 (TCC) (03 September 2013)

The contract was formed on 6 July 2010 between Liberty Mercian and CCEL, not CDDL. References to CCEL were not a misnomer for CDDL; the parties deliberately named CCEL, a real and existing company, as contractor. Extrinsic evidence cannot substitute CDDL for CCEL in the deed. Liberty Mercian is not entitled to rectification or specific performance against CDDL. The contractor is not obliged to deliver the parent company guarantee, performance bond or warranties as sought.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2688 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Liberty Mercian Limited; 1st Defendant: Cuddy Civil Engineering Limited; 2nd Defendant: Cuddy Demolition and Dismantling Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim for Declaratory Relief, Specific Performance, Rectification And/or Damages / Judgment at First Instance (high Court, Tcc)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Rectification, Misnomer, Specific Performance, Parent Company Guarantee, Performance Bond, Collateral Warranties
Contract Law Construction Law Formation of Contract Rectification Misnomer Specific Performance Parent Company Guarantee Performance Bond +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liberty Mercian Limited

Claimant

Cuddy Civil Engineering Limited

1st Defendant

Cuddy Demolition and Dismantling Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim for Declaratory Relief, Specific Performance, Rectification And/or Damages / Judgment at First Instance (high Court, Tcc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When was the contract formed?
  2. 2 Who were the parties to the contract?
  3. 3 Was there a misnomer in the contracting party?

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was formed on 6 July 2010 between Liberty Mercian and CCEL, not CDDL. References to CCEL were not a misnomer for CDDL; the parties deliberately named CCEL, a real and existing company, as contractor. Extrinsic evidence cannot substitute CDDL for CCEL in the deed. Liberty Mercian is not entitled to rectification or specific performance against CDDL. The contractor is not obliged to deliver the parent company guarantee, performance bond or warranties as sought.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No rectification of contract
  • No order for specific performance