Wood v Days Health UK Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1079 (QB) (09 May 2016)
There was a contract between C and D2 for the sale of the riser unit; D2 breached that contract and caused injury to C; D2's arguments to the contrary had no real prospect of success; D1's application to withdraw its admission of liability was refused as there was no new evidence and D1 took a calculated risk; C's claim against D5 disclosed no reasonable grounds and was struck out.
- Citation
- [2016] EWHC 1079 (QB)
- Parties
- Claimant: S E Wood; First Defendant: Days Health UK Limited; Second Defendant: The Secretary of State for Health; Third Defendant: Shropshire Community Health Service; Fourth Defendant: Balle/S (T/A F Reac A/S); Fifth Defendant: Berwick Care Equipment Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 09 May 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury/contract/interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory (applications for Summary Judgment, Amendment, Strike Out, Withdrawal of Admission)
- Outcome
- Summary judgment for C against D2 on contract; D1's application to withdraw admission refused; D5's application to strike out granted; D2 permitted to amend defence to claim contribution from D1 and D4; D4 permitted to amend defence.
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Withdrawal of Admission, Strike Out, Sale of Goods, Contribution Claims, Limitation, Agency, Implied Terms, Consumer Protection
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
S E Wood
Claimant
Days Health UK Limited
First Defendant
The Secretary of State for Health
Second Defendant
Shropshire Community Health Service
Third Defendant
Balle/S (T/A F Reac A/S)
Fourth Defendant
Berwick Care Equipment Limited
Fifth Defendant
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/contract/interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory (applications for Summary Judgment, Amendment, Strike Out, Withdrawal of Admission)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether D2 contracted with C for the sale of the riser unit and breached that contract
- 2 Whether D1 should be permitted to withdraw its pre-action admission of liability
- 3 Whether C has a viable claim against D5
Ratio Decidendi
There was a contract between C and D2 for the sale of the riser unit; D2 breached that contract and caused injury to C; D2's arguments to the contrary had no real prospect of success; D1's application to withdraw its admission of liability was refused as there was no new evidence and D1 took a calculated risk; C's claim against D5 disclosed no reasonable grounds and was struck out.
Court Disposition
Summary judgment for C against D2 on contract; D1's application to withdraw admission refused; D5's application to strike out granted; D2 permitted to amend defence to claim contribution from D1 and D4; D4 permitted to amend defence.
Orders
- Summary judgment for C against D2 on contract, breach, and causation of injury
- D1's application to withdraw admission of liability and concession on contributory negligence dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment