Biosol Renewables UK Ltd v Lovering & Anor (t/a R & A Properties (A Partnership))

Biosol Renewables UK Ltd v Lovering & Anor (t/a R & A Properties (A Partnership))

The claimant did not make actionable misrepresentations or contractual warranties regarding boiler income or fuel costs. The boilers supplied were fit for the purpose as communicated by the defendants, whose primary aim was to maximise RHI income. The Maintenance and Woodchip Agreement was valid, and the defendants repudiated it without justification. The claimant is entitled to recover unpaid balances, interest, and damages for loss of profit, while the counterclaim fails for lack of proof and credibility.

Parties
Claimant: Biosol Renewables UK Limited; Defendant: Robert Nigel Lovering; Defendant: David Francis Pickering; Defendant: Wayne Preece (trading as R & A Properties)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for claimant; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Supply of Goods and Services, Implied Terms, Breach of Contract, Damages, Misrepresentation, Restraint of Trade, Maintenance Agreements, Biomass Boilers, Renewable Heat Incentive
Contract Tort Misrepresentation Restraint of Trade Sale of Goods Supply of Goods and Services Implied Terms Breach of Contract +4 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Biosol Renewables UK Limited

Claimant

Robert Nigel Lovering

Defendant

David Francis Pickering

Defendant

Wayne Preece (trading as R & A Properties)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether misrepresentations induced the defendants to contract
  2. 2 Whether boilers supplied were fit for purpose and appropriately sized
  3. 3 Whether there was breach of contract regarding installation delays

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant did not make actionable misrepresentations or contractual warranties regarding boiler income or fuel costs. The boilers supplied were fit for the purpose as communicated by the defendants, whose primary aim was to maximise RHI income. The Maintenance and Woodchip Agreement was valid, and the defendants repudiated it without justification. The claimant is entitled to recover unpaid balances, interest, and damages for loss of profit, while the counterclaim fails for lack of proof and credibility.

Court Disposition

Judgment for claimant; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay £296,814.80 for unpaid balance of boilers plus contractual interest.
  • Defendants to pay £310,602.74 for ancillary works and woodchip plus statutory interest.