Mandrake Holdings Ltd. v Mandrake Associates Ltd.

Mandrake Holdings Ltd. v Mandrake Associates Ltd.

The appeal was dismissed because the court was bound by existing authority (Sprung) that consequential damages for late payment under a contract of indemnity are not recoverable, and the judge was correct to refuse permission to amend the pleadings to include such a claim. The court also affirmed that a trial judge must follow binding precedent, even if the law is controversial or subject to possible change.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mandrake Holdings Limited; Claimant/appellant: Mandrake Associates Limited; Defendant/respondent: Countrywide Assured Group PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) – Application for Permission to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted; permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Contracts, Damages for Late Payment, Amendment of Pleadings, Case Management
Contract Law Civil Procedure Indemnity Contracts Damages for Late Payment Amendment of Pleadings Case Management

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

Parties

Mandrake Holdings Limited

Claimant/appellant

Mandrake Associates Limited

Claimant/appellant

Countrywide Assured Group PLC

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) – Application for Permission to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages for consequential loss are recoverable for late payment under a contract of indemnity
  2. 2 Whether permission to amend pleadings to include a new head of claim should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the court was bound by existing authority (Sprung) that consequential damages for late payment under a contract of indemnity are not recoverable, and the judge was correct to refuse permission to amend the pleadings to include such a claim. The court also affirmed that a trial judge must follow binding precedent, even if the law is controversial or subject to possible change.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted; permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted.
  • Appeal against order refusing permission to amend dismissed.