Interleasing (UK) Ltd v Morris [2003] EWCA Civ 40 (14 January 2003)

Interleasing (UK) Ltd v Morris [2003] EWCA Civ 40 (14 January 2003)

The contract did not require an implied term that counsel's opinion be based on true facts and proper instructions; the opinion acts as a certificate if it meets the formal requirements of Schedule 9, paragraph 10.4. The court or Mr Morris cannot go behind the opinion at the interlocutory stage. Disclosure of instructions was not required as the only issue was whether the opinion on its face complied with the contract. The claim pleaded was sufficiently identical to that vouched by the opinion.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 40
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant/respondent: Interleasing (UK) Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant: Nicholas Melvyn Morris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Construction of Contracts, Retention Sums, Warranty Claims, Privilege and Disclosure, Expert Opinions in Contracts
Contract Law Commercial Law Implied Terms Construction of Contracts Retention Sums Warranty Claims Privilege and Disclosure Expert Opinions in Contracts

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Interleasing (UK) Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant/respondent

Nicholas Melvyn Morris

Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term should be read into the contract requiring counsel's opinion to be based on true facts and proper instructions
  2. 2 Whether the instructions to counsel should be disclosed due to alleged waiver of privilege
  3. 3 Whether the counsel's opinion satisfied the contractual requirements for a 'Good Claim' under Schedule 9, paragraph 10.4

Ratio Decidendi

The contract did not require an implied term that counsel's opinion be based on true facts and proper instructions; the opinion acts as a certificate if it meets the formal requirements of Schedule 9, paragraph 10.4. The court or Mr Morris cannot go behind the opinion at the interlocutory stage. Disclosure of instructions was not required as the only issue was whether the opinion on its face complied with the contract. The claim pleaded was sufficiently identical to that vouched by the opinion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs summarily assessed at £20,000
  • Application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused