Priory Caring Services Ltd v Capita Property Services Ltd

Priory Caring Services Ltd v Capita Property Services Ltd

The release agreement in the letter of 10 March 2003 was a wide release, objectively intended to cover all claims, known or unknown, arising from Capita's appointment as surveyors to Priory in relation to the Priory Hotel, including latent defects discovered after the agreement. The release was supported by consideration. There was no procedural irregularity or admissible new evidence justifying setting aside the judgment.

Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Priory Caring Services Limited; Respondent / Defendant: Capita Property Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Striking Out Claim at Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Release and Settlement Agreements, Interpretation of Contracts, Consideration, Preliminary Issues, Latent Defects, Limitation of Actions

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Priory Caring Services Limited

Appellant / Claimant

Capita Property Services Ltd

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Striking Out Claim at Preliminary Issue

  1. 1 Whether the release agreement in the letter of 10 March 2003 barred Priory's claim against Capita for negligence
  2. 2 Whether the release extended to unknown claims, including latent defects discovered after the agreement
  3. 3 Whether the release agreement was supported by consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The release agreement in the letter of 10 March 2003 was a wide release, objectively intended to cover all claims, known or unknown, arising from Capita's appointment as surveyors to Priory in relation to the Priory Hotel, including latent defects discovered after the agreement. The release was supported by consideration. There was no procedural irregularity or admissible new evidence justifying setting aside the judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Priory's applications to expand the appeal refused
  • Priory's appeal dismissed