Allen-Britten & Anor v Abels [2009] EWHC 1614 (TCC) (09 July 2009)

Allen-Britten & Anor v Abels [2009] EWHC 1614 (TCC) (09 July 2009)

The contract was between Arbi'n'Tap Ltd and Mr Abels. Mr Abels breached the contract by late delivery, failing to complete the vessel, and delivering a vessel with significant defects and omissions, including lack of required stability certification and unfit design features. These breaches caused losses to the claimants, who were entitled to damages. The defendant's counterclaim for extras was largely unsubstantiated and failed except for minor sums.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1614 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Corrine Allen-Britten; Claimant: Arbi'n'Tap Limited; Defendant: David Arthur Abels
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (technology and Construction Court) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants on the main claim; limited success for the defendant on minor elements of the counterclaim.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Implied Terms, Fitness for Purpose, Sale of Goods, Damages, Repudiation, Counterclaim
Contract Law Sale of Goods Construction Law Breach of Contract Implied Terms Fitness for Purpose Damages Repudiation +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corrine Allen-Britten

Claimant

Arbi'n'Tap Limited

Claimant

David Arthur Abels

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (technology and Construction Court) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who was the purchaser and what were the relevant terms of the contract?
  2. 2 What breaches of contract occurred?
  3. 3 Did those breaches cause the claimed losses?

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was between Arbi'n'Tap Ltd and Mr Abels. Mr Abels breached the contract by late delivery, failing to complete the vessel, and delivering a vessel with significant defects and omissions, including lack of required stability certification and unfit design features. These breaches caused losses to the claimants, who were entitled to damages. The defendant's counterclaim for extras was largely unsubstantiated and failed except for minor sums.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants on the main claim; limited success for the defendant on minor elements of the counterclaim.

Orders

  • Damages awarded to claimants for breaches of contract and consequential losses.
  • Defendant entitled to minor sums for proven extras supplied.