Mostcash Plc & Ors v Fluor Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 975 (11 July 2002)

Mostcash Plc & Ors v Fluor Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 975 (11 July 2002)

The Court held that the claims for latent defects were not barred by the 1998 settlement agreement, as the language did not clearly exclude unknown claims of this nature. The EPCM agreement did not exclude claims for damages for breach of contract, and the exclusion/limitation clauses did not preclude such claims. The issues of rectification, estoppel, and UCTA reasonableness did not arise as the claims were not excluded by the agreements.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 975
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Mostcash PLC & Others; Defendants/appellant: Fluor Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Technology & Construction Court (preliminary Issues) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; claims not barred; preliminary issues resolved in favour of claimants.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Settlement Agreements, Exclusion and Limitation Clauses, Rectification of Contracts, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Estoppel, Implied Contractual Terms
Contract Law Construction Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Settlement Agreements Exclusion and Limitation Clauses Rectification of Contracts Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Estoppel +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mostcash PLC & Others

Claimants/respondents

Fluor Limited

Defendants/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Technology & Construction Court (preliminary Issues) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against Fluor is barred by the 15 January 1998 settlement agreement
  2. 2 Whether Fluor's liability is limited to the warranty and guarantee in Article V of the EPCM agreement
  3. 3 Whether the EPCM agreement excludes claims for damages for breach of contract or tort

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the claims for latent defects were not barred by the 1998 settlement agreement, as the language did not clearly exclude unknown claims of this nature. The EPCM agreement did not exclude claims for damages for breach of contract, and the exclusion/limitation clauses did not preclude such claims. The issues of rectification, estoppel, and UCTA reasonableness did not arise as the claims were not excluded by the agreements.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; claims not barred; preliminary issues resolved in favour of claimants.

Orders

  • Claims for damages for latent defects not barred by settlement agreement.
  • EPCM agreement does not exclude claims for damages for breach of contract.