Finesse Group Ltd v Bryson Products (A Firm) [2013] EWHC 3273 (TCC) (29 October 2013)

Finesse Group Ltd v Bryson Products (A Firm) [2013] EWHC 3273 (TCC) (29 October 2013)

The claim in tort against Bostik was dismissed because the pleaded facts did not disclose any physical damage to property other than the defective adhesive itself, and thus no recoverable loss in tort. Economic loss alone is not sufficient for a negligence claim against a manufacturer in these circumstances. The application to re-amend the Particulars of Claim against Bostik was refused as having no real prospect of success. The case was retained in the High Court as a test case due to the existence of multiple related claims.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3273 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Finesse Group Limited; First Defendant: Bryson Products (a firm); Second Defendant: Bostik Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Case Management Conference; Applications for Summary Judgment and to Re Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Claim against Bostik Limited dismissed; permission to re-amend Particulars of Claim against Bostik refused; case to proceed against Bryson Products; case retained in High Court as a test case; costs management deferred.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Negligence, Economic Loss, Test Case Criteria, Case Transfer, Costs Management
Contract Law Tort Law Product Liability Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Amendment of Pleadings Negligence Economic Loss +3 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Finesse Group Limited

Claimant

Bryson Products (a firm)

First Defendant

Bostik Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Case Management Conference; Applications for Summary Judgment and to Re Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant has a viable cause of action in tort against Bostik for defective adhesive resulting in economic loss and delamination of exhibition stands
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted to re-amend the Particulars of Claim against Bostik
  3. 3 Whether the case should be transferred to the Central London County Court or remain in the High Court as a test case

Ratio Decidendi

The claim in tort against Bostik was dismissed because the pleaded facts did not disclose any physical damage to property other than the defective adhesive itself, and thus no recoverable loss in tort. Economic loss alone is not sufficient for a negligence claim against a manufacturer in these circumstances. The application to re-amend the Particulars of Claim against Bostik was refused as having no real prospect of success. The case was retained in the High Court as a test case due to the existence of multiple related claims.

Court Disposition

Claim against Bostik Limited dismissed; permission to re-amend Particulars of Claim against Bostik refused; case to proceed against Bryson Products; case retained in High Court as a test case; costs management deferred.

Orders

  • Claim against Bostik Limited dismissed
  • Permission to re-amend Particulars of Claim against Bostik refused