McAlpine Grant Ilco Ltd v AFR Refrigeration Ltd

McAlpine Grant Ilco Ltd v AFR Refrigeration Ltd

The loss of the pharmaceutical products was a direct and natural consequence of the breach of warranty in the ordinary course of events. The absence of an alarm system did not break the chain of causation nor render the loss too remote. The judge applied the wrong test and failed to base his findings on evidence regarding the alarm's effectiveness. The Claimant is entitled to recover the losses claimed.

Parties
Claimant and Appellant: McAlpine Grant Ilco Limited; Defendant and Respondent: AFR Refrigeration Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Remoteness of Damages, Breach of Warranty, Measure of Damages, Causation
Contract Law Sale of Goods Remoteness of Damages Breach of Warranty Measure of Damages Causation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McAlpine Grant Ilco Limited

Claimant and Appellant

AFR Refrigeration Limited

Defendant and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the damages claimed were too remote to be recoverable under section 53(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an alarm system constituted a supervening event or novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation
  3. 3 Whether the use of the refrigeration unit for high-value goods without an alarm constituted a 'special use' outside the ordinary course of events

Ratio Decidendi

The loss of the pharmaceutical products was a direct and natural consequence of the breach of warranty in the ordinary course of events. The absence of an alarm system did not break the chain of causation nor render the loss too remote. The judge applied the wrong test and failed to base his findings on evidence regarding the alarm's effectiveness. The Claimant is entitled to recover the losses claimed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Claimant entitled to recover losses claimed
  • Order for costs set aside