Albright & Wilson UK Ltd v Biachem Ltd & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 301 (28 February 2001)

Albright & Wilson UK Ltd v Biachem Ltd & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 301 (28 February 2001)

Both Biachem and Berk, through their agent Huktra, purported to perform their respective contracts with Albright & Wilson; both were in breach due to misdelivery and incorrect documentation. The contract between Albright & Wilson and Biachem was governed by Albright & Wilson's terms. The appeals of both parties were dismissed as the judge's findings were correct on the facts and law.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 301
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Albright & Wilson UK Limited; First Defendant (appellant): Biachem Limited; Second Defendant (appellant): Berk Chemicals Limited; Third Defendant: Berk Limited; Fourth Defendant: Univar PLC; Fifth Defendant: Huktra NV; Seventh Defendant: Arthur Stevens, Jane Stevens and Robert Stevens t/a A T Stevens Transport
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeals of both parties dismissed with costs; applications for permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
Legal Topics
Purported Performance, Implied Terms, Breach of Contract, Agency, Battle of the Forms, Sale of Goods Act 1979
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Purported Performance Implied Terms Breach of Contract Agency Battle of the Forms +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albright & Wilson UK Limited

Claimant (respondent)

Biachem Limited

First Defendant (appellant)

Berk Chemicals Limited

Second Defendant (appellant)

Berk Limited

Third Defendant

Univar PLC

Fourth Defendant

Huktra NV

Fifth Defendant

Arthur Stevens, Jane Stevens and Robert Stevens t/a A T Stevens Transport

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the events constituted performance or purported performance of both Berk's and Biachem's contracts with Albright & Wilson
  2. 2 Whether Biachem was in breach of contract for delivering sodium chlorite instead of EPI
  3. 3 Whether Berk was in breach of contract for documentation errors and misdelivery

Ratio Decidendi

Both Biachem and Berk, through their agent Huktra, purported to perform their respective contracts with Albright & Wilson; both were in breach due to misdelivery and incorrect documentation. The contract between Albright & Wilson and Biachem was governed by Albright & Wilson's terms. The appeals of both parties were dismissed as the judge's findings were correct on the facts and law.

Court Disposition

Appeals of both parties dismissed with costs; applications for permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Costs awarded against appellants