Rabilizirov v A2 Dominion London Ltd & Ors

Rabilizirov v A2 Dominion London Ltd & Ors

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 actions of A2 companies and Durkan did not constitute a novus actus interveniens or failure to mitigate. The loss of rent was foreseeable and not too remote. The appeal was dismissed as the trial judge applied the correct legal principles and made findings open to him on the evidence.

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
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court at Central London
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indemnity Clauses, Remoteness of Damage, Novus Actus Interveniens, Mitigation of Loss, Contract Interpretation
Contract Law Construction Law Indemnity Clauses Remoteness of Damage Novus Actus Interveniens Mitigation of Loss Contract Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 12 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

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court at Central London

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 loss of rent and remedial works
  3. 3 Whether the loss of rent was too remote or not reasonably 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 actions of A2 companies and Durkan did not constitute a novus actus interveniens or failure to mitigate. The loss of rent was foreseeable and not too remote. The appeal was dismissed as the trial judge applied the correct legal principles and made findings open to him on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • GCL remains liable to indemnify Durkan for the cost of remedial works and the loss of rent claim.