Rabilizirov v A2 Dominion London Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 186 (QB) (05 February 2019)

Rabilizirov v A2 Dominion London Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 186 (QB) (05 February 2019)

The indemnity clause in DOM/2 was incorporated into the subcontract between Durkan and GCL and was sufficiently wide to cover the losses claimed. GCL's breach of contract was an effective cause of the loss, and the conduct of A2 companies and Durkan did not constitute a novus actus interveniens. The loss of rent was foreseeable and not too remote, and there was no failure to mitigate. The judge's findings of fact and law were unimpeachable and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 186
Parties
Claimant: Savi Rabilizirov; Defendant/additional Claimant/respondent: A2 Dominion London Ltd; Defendant/additional Claimant/respondent: A2 Dominion Homes Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Ground Construction Limited; Third Party/respondent: Durkan Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indemnity Clauses, Contractual Incorporation, Remoteness of Damage, Novus Actus Interveniens, Mitigation of Loss
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Indemnity Clauses Contractual Incorporation Remoteness of Damage Novus Actus Interveniens Mitigation of Loss

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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Savi Rabilizirov

Claimant

A2 Dominion London Ltd

Defendant/additional Claimant/respondent

A2 Dominion Homes Ltd

Defendant/additional Claimant/respondent

Ground Construction Limited

Defendant/appellant

Durkan Limited

Third Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indemnity clause in DOM/2 was incorporated into the subcontract between Durkan and GCL
  2. 2 Whether GCL was liable to indemnify Durkan for losses including remedial works and loss of rent
  3. 3 Whether loss of rent was too remote or not foreseeable

Ratio Decidendi

The indemnity clause in DOM/2 was incorporated into the subcontract between Durkan and GCL and was sufficiently wide to cover the losses claimed. GCL's breach of contract was an effective cause of the loss, and the conduct of A2 companies and Durkan did not constitute a novus actus interveniens. The loss of rent was foreseeable and not too remote, and there was no failure to mitigate. The judge's findings of fact and law were unimpeachable and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • GCL remains liable to indemnify Durkan for remedial works and loss of rent
  • No change to costs order against GCL