Finning (UK) Ltd. v Inveresk Plc

Finning (UK) Ltd. v Inveresk Plc

There was no full novation of the hire agreements to Klippan because Klippan did not accept all terms, particularly liability for early termination charges, and Inveresk was not discharged from liability for those charges. The judge at first instance was correct to hold Inveresk liable. The original Particulars of Claim were adequate, and the costs orders made by the first instance judge should be restored as the appeal judge was plainly wrong.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Finning (UK) Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Inveresk plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court and High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Mercantile Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (substantive); Costs appeal allowed; Orders of first instance restored
Legal Topics
Novation, Assignment, Hire Agreements, Costs Orders, Pleading Requirements
Contract Law Commercial Law Novation Assignment Hire Agreements Costs Orders Pleading Requirements

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Finning (UK) Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Inveresk plc

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court and High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Mercantile Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hire agreements between Lex (assigned to Finning) and Inveresk were novated to Klippan, thereby discharging Inveresk from liability for early termination charges
  2. 2 Whether the original Particulars of Claim sufficiently pleaded the cause of action and whether costs orders below were correct

Ratio Decidendi

There was no full novation of the hire agreements to Klippan because Klippan did not accept all terms, particularly liability for early termination charges, and Inveresk was not discharged from liability for those charges. The judge at first instance was correct to hold Inveresk liable. The original Particulars of Claim were adequate, and the costs orders made by the first instance judge should be restored as the appeal judge was plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (substantive); Costs appeal allowed; Orders of first instance restored

Orders

  • B2/2006/1747/A – Application refused
  • B2/2006/1947 – Appeal dismissed