Castle Trustee Ltd & Ors v Bombay Palace Restaurant Ltd

Castle Trustee Ltd & Ors v Bombay Palace Restaurant Ltd

The claimants are entitled to payment for additional works requested by the defendant outside the contract scope, assessed on a reasonable sum basis. The defendant is entitled to closure compensation for the entire period the restaurant was closed, as the closure was directly caused by the contract works, not by...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Castle Trustee Limited; Claimant: Enola Limited; Claimant: Liberty Nominees Limited; Claimant: Liberty Property (GP) Limited; Defendant: Bombay Palace Restaurant Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction/commercial) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for both parties in part; claimants recover for some additional works; defendant recovers closure compensation; net balance to be calculated.
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Contractual Interpretation, Variation of Contract, Extension of Time, Closure Compensation, Implied Terms
Contract Law Construction Law Quantum Meruit Contractual Interpretation Variation of Contract Extension of Time Closure Compensation Implied Terms

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

Parties

Castle Trustee Limited

Claimant

Enola Limited

Claimant

Liberty Nominees Limited

Claimant

Liberty Property (GP) Limited

Claimant

Bombay Palace Restaurant Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction/commercial) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to payment for additional or varied works requested by the defendant outside the original contract scope
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to closure compensation for the period the restaurant was closed
  3. 3 Proper construction of the agreement regarding variations and closure compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants are entitled to payment for additional works requested by the defendant outside the contract scope, assessed on a reasonable sum basis. The defendant is entitled to closure compensation for the entire period the restaurant was closed, as the closure was directly caused by the contract works, not by additional works. The contract did not provide for an extension of time or variation mechanism that would reduce closure compensation for periods of delay caused by additional works.

Court Disposition

Judgment for both parties in part; claimants recover for some additional works; defendant recovers closure compensation; net balance to be calculated.

Orders

  • Claimants entitled to payment for specified additional works as detailed in the judgment and schedule.
  • Defendant entitled to closure compensation for the period 2 January 2012 to 19 May 2012, calculated at £784,571.43.