Filobake Ltd v Rondo Ltd & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 944 (09 July 2004)

Filobake Ltd v Rondo Ltd & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 944 (09 July 2004)

It is arguable and fit for appeal that the judge erred in construing the scope of the first defendant's performance warranty and failed to address the implied fitness for purpose obligations of both defendants. The judge's approach to damages and wasted expenditure is also open to challenge. Permission to appeal is granted on these grounds.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 944
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Filobake Limited; First Defendant/respondent: Rondo Limited; Second Defendant/respondent: Frampton International Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Performance Warranties, Implied Terms, Fitness for Purpose, Damages, Wasted Expenditure, Stay of Costs Order
Contract Law Commercial Law Performance Warranties Implied Terms Fitness for Purpose Damages Wasted Expenditure Stay of Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Filobake Limited

Claimant/applicant

Rondo Limited

First Defendant/respondent

Frampton International Limited

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of performance warranties in equipment supply contracts
  2. 2 Scope of implied terms of fitness for purpose
  3. 3 Assessment of damages for breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable and fit for appeal that the judge erred in construing the scope of the first defendant's performance warranty and failed to address the implied fitness for purpose obligations of both defendants. The judge's approach to damages and wasted expenditure is also open to challenge. Permission to appeal is granted on these grounds.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; case to be heard by a court of three Lord Justices with a time estimate of 2-3 days
  • Costs in the appeal