Kang & Anor v Pattar

Kang & Anor v Pattar

The Claimants were undisclosed principals and entitled to sue and be sued on the Varied Contract. The Varied Contract was made orally after planning permission but before construction drawings were provided, and did not incorporate those drawings. The parties agreed to suspend work due to lack of funds, with the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Mrs Gurpreet Kang; Claimant: Mr Avtar Singh; Defendant: Mr Kultarn Singh Pattar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; Counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Agency, Damages, Repudiatory Breach, Remedial Works, Lost Profit
Contract Law Construction Law Breach of Contract Agency Damages Repudiatory Breach Remedial Works Lost Profit

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Gurpreet Kang

Claimant

Mr Avtar Singh

Claimant

Mr Kultarn Singh Pattar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Singh acted as agent for the Claimants or as sole principal
  2. 2 The terms and scope of the Varied Contract
  3. 3 Whether either party was in repudiatory breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants were undisclosed principals and entitled to sue and be sued on the Varied Contract. The Varied Contract was made orally after planning permission but before construction drawings were provided, and did not incorporate those drawings. The parties agreed to suspend work due to lack of funds, with the Defendant to return when funds were available. The Claimants repudiated the contract by failing to pay and not inviting the Defendant to complete the work. The Defendant was not in repudiatory breach. The Defendant is entitled to payment for work completed, after deduction for remedial works, and to lost profit on the uncompleted portion of the contract.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; Counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the Defendant on the Counterclaim in the sum of £18,642
  • Claim dismissed