Goodway & Anor v Zurich Insurance Company [2004] EWCA Civ 1446 (18 October 2004)

Goodway & Anor v Zurich Insurance Company [2004] EWCA Civ 1446 (18 October 2004)

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the alleged factual inaccuracies and legal errors did not vitiate the judge's reasoning or conclusions. The judge's findings on mutual delay, lack of loss, and absence of actionable misrepresentation were supported by the evidence. The costs order was within the judge's discretion and not manifestly wrong.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1446
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Richard Charles Goodway; Applicant/claimant: Carabos Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Zurich Insurance Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Tomlin Order Enforcement, Misrepresentation, Costs Orders, Settlement Agreements, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Contract Law Insurance Law Tomlin Order Enforcement Misrepresentation Costs Orders Settlement Agreements Appeal Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Charles Goodway

Applicant/claimant

Carabos Ltd

Applicant/claimant

Zurich Insurance Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the orders of the Technology and Construction Court
  2. 2 Whether there was unfairness or error in the trial justifying a new trial
  3. 3 Whether the Tomlin Order should be set aside for misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the alleged factual inaccuracies and legal errors did not vitiate the judge's reasoning or conclusions. The judge's findings on mutual delay, lack of loss, and absence of actionable misrepresentation were supported by the evidence. The costs order was within the judge's discretion and not manifestly wrong.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • Application for extension of time refused as consequential