Allied Carpets Group plc v Whicheloe MacFarlane Partnership [2002] EWHC 1155 (TCC) (17 June 2002)

Allied Carpets Group plc v Whicheloe MacFarlane Partnership [2002] EWHC 1155 (TCC) (17 June 2002)

The claimant is not entitled to the benefit of the Warranty because there was no intention or act of assignment of the Warranty to the claimant, and the conveyancing documents did not effect such an assignment. Clause 6 of the Warranty did not prohibit assignment after the grant of the Lease, but no assignment occurred in fact or law.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1155 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Allied Carpets Group PLC; Defendants: Stephen Grant Parlan Macfarlane, Robert James Goard, Andrew Shaw, David John Radford, David Always, Julian Cooper trading as The Whicheloe Macfarlane Partnership (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Assignment of Contractual Rights, Collateral Warranty, Equitable Assignment, Interpretation of Contracts
Contract Law Property Law Construction Law Privity of Contract Assignment of Contractual Rights Collateral Warranty Equitable Assignment Interpretation of Contracts

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allied Carpets Group PLC

Claimant

Stephen Grant Parlan Macfarlane, Robert James Goard, Andrew Shaw, David John Radford, David Always, Julian Cooper trading as The Whicheloe Macfarlane Partnership (A Firm)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the Warranty referred to in the Particulars of Claim despite not being a party to the deed.
  2. 2 Whether there was an assignment of the Warranty to the claimant, either legal or equitable.
  3. 3 Whether clause 6 of the Warranty prohibits assignment except in specified circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is not entitled to the benefit of the Warranty because there was no intention or act of assignment of the Warranty to the claimant, and the conveyancing documents did not effect such an assignment. Clause 6 of the Warranty did not prohibit assignment after the grant of the Lease, but no assignment occurred in fact or law.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant is not entitled to the benefit of the Warranty referred to in the Particulars of Claim.
  • The action is dismissed.