General Construction Limited v Chue Wing & Co Ltd and another (Mauritius)

General Construction Limited v Chue Wing & Co Ltd and another (Mauritius)

The appellant failed to prove that the collapse of the crane was caused by an event of force majeure, as cyclones with wind gusts over 200 kmph are foreseeable in Mauritius and no evidence was provided that all reasonably practicable precautions were taken to ensure the crane's suitability and resistance; the Court of Civil Appeal's award of interest to the second respondent was appropriate and within the Board's jurisdiction.

Parties
Appellant: General Construction Limited; First Respondent: Ibrahim Cassam & Co Ltd; Second Respondent: Chue Wing & Co Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Privy Council
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Force Majeure, Delictual Liability, Interest on Damages
Tort Civil Liability Force Majeure Delictual Liability Interest on 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

General Construction Limited

Appellant

Ibrahim Cassam & Co Ltd

First Respondent

Chue Wing & Co Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cyclone Hollanda constituted force majeure under article 1384 of the Civil Code
  2. 2 Whether the appellant took all reasonably practicable precautions to avoid damage
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Civil Appeal was functus officio when awarding interest to the second respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove that the collapse of the crane was caused by an event of force majeure, as cyclones with wind gusts over 200 kmph are foreseeable in Mauritius and no evidence was provided that all reasonably practicable precautions were taken to ensure the crane's suitability and resistance; the Court of Civil Appeal's award of interest to the second respondent was appropriate and within the Board's jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant held liable in damages to both respondents
  • Interest at the legal rate awarded to both respondents from the date of their respective statements of claim until satisfaction of judgment