Inframatrix Investments Ltd v Dean Construction Ltd

Inframatrix Investments Ltd v Dean Construction Ltd

The limitation clause (clause 17.4) was clear and unambiguous. The last performance of contractual services by the defendant was in February 2009. The subsequent 'without prejudice' meeting and report did not amount to contractual performance. Therefore, the claim issued in December 2010 was barred by the contractual limitation period.

Parties
Claimant: Inframatrix Investments Limited; Defendant: Dean Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (high Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Interpretation of Contractual Clauses, Summary Judgment
Contract Law Construction Law Limitation of Actions Interpretation of Contractual Clauses Summary Judgment

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inframatrix Investments Limited

Claimant

Dean Construction Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (high Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contractual limitation clause (clause 17.4) barred the claimant's claim for breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether the defendant performed 'Services' within one year prior to commencement of proceedings, thus affecting the limitation period
  3. 3 Whether 'without prejudice' negotiations and related activities constituted performance of contractual services

Ratio Decidendi

The limitation clause (clause 17.4) was clear and unambiguous. The last performance of contractual services by the defendant was in February 2009. The subsequent 'without prejudice' meeting and report did not amount to contractual performance. Therefore, the claim issued in December 2010 was barred by the contractual limitation period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.