Robertson & Anor v Bembridge Harbour Improvements Company Ltd (MY 'Tangent')

Robertson & Anor v Bembridge Harbour Improvements Company Ltd (MY 'Tangent')

The Defendant breached its contractual obligation by failing to repair corrosion holes in the marina piles when the risk of snagging became foreseeable and patent. This breach caused the Vessel to sink, resulting in loss to the Claimants. The proper measure of damages is the difference between the Vessel's market...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Nicholas Robertson; Claimant: Mr George Greenwood; Defendant: Bembridge Harbour Improvements Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Causation, Damages, Maintenance Obligations, Mooring Licence, Expert Evidence
Contract Law Maritime Law Breach of Contract Causation Damages Maintenance Obligations Mooring Licence Expert Evidence

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Mr Nicholas Robertson

Claimant

Mr George Greenwood

Claimant

Bembridge Harbour Improvements Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Defendant breach its contractual obligation to maintain marina facilities in good working order?
  2. 2 Was the Defendant's breach the cause of the Vessel's sinking and the Claimants' loss?
  3. 3 What is the proper measure of damages for the loss suffered by the Claimants?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant breached its contractual obligation by failing to repair corrosion holes in the marina piles when the risk of snagging became foreseeable and patent. This breach caused the Vessel to sink, resulting in loss to the Claimants. The proper measure of damages is the difference between the Vessel's market value before and after the incident, plus reasonable salvage costs.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimants damages of £118,888.10
  • Counterclaim dismissed