Hargreaves & Ors v Barron Industrial Services Ltd.

Hargreaves & Ors v Barron Industrial Services Ltd.

The trial judge was entitled to adopt a 'top down' approach to the valuation of the lost contract, to reject the deduction of additional heads of expenditure including the cost of an additional manager, and to rely on the 25% uplift for overheads. The assessment of damages at 40% of £47,500 was a reasonable estimate based on the evidence and credibility findings. There was no error of law or principle justifying appellate interference.

Parties
Appellants: Hargreaves & Ors; Respondent: Barron Industrial Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages for Loss of Chance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Inducement of Breach of Contract, Conspiracy, Assessment of Damages
Contract Law Employment Law Tort Law Damages for Loss of Chance Breach of Fiduciary Duty Inducement of Breach of Contract Conspiracy Assessment of Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hargreaves & Ors

Appellants

Barron Industrial Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of the value of the lost contract for damages purposes
  2. 2 Whether certain heads of expenditure should have been deducted in calculating damages
  3. 3 Whether the cost of an additional manager should have been included in the calculation

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to adopt a 'top down' approach to the valuation of the lost contract, to reject the deduction of additional heads of expenditure including the cost of an additional manager, and to rely on the 25% uplift for overheads. The assessment of damages at 40% of £47,500 was a reasonable estimate based on the evidence and credibility findings. There was no error of law or principle justifying appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants’ appeal dismissed
  • Appellants to pay Respondent’s costs of the appeal in the sum of £10,000