Technotrade Ltd v Larkstore Ltd

Technotrade Ltd v Larkstore Ltd

Larkstore, as assignee, is entitled to recover substantial damages for loss suffered after the transfer of the site but before the assignment, provided the loss flows from the original breach of contract by Technotrade. The assignment was valid and not champertous. The principle that an assignee cannot recover more than the assignor does not prevent recovery in these circumstances, as the loss would have been recoverable by the assignor had it retained the property. The assignment does not create a 'legal black hole' and does not prejudice the contract-breaker beyond what would have been the case absent the assignment.

Parties
Appellant: Technotrade Ltd; Respondent: Larkstore Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (preliminary Issue Determination)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Causes of Action, Measure of Damages, Duty of Care, Privity of Contract, Remoteness of Damage

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Technotrade Ltd

Appellant

Larkstore Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (preliminary Issue Determination)

  1. 1 Whether an assignee of a cause of action for breach of contract can recover substantial damages for loss suffered after the transfer of property but before the assignment, in excess of what the assignor could have recovered.
  2. 2 Whether the assignment of the cause of action was valid and not champertous.
  3. 3 Whether Technotrade owed a duty of care in tort to Larkstore and/or third parties.

Ratio Decidendi

Larkstore, as assignee, is entitled to recover substantial damages for loss suffered after the transfer of the site but before the assignment, provided the loss flows from the original breach of contract by Technotrade. The assignment was valid and not champertous. The principle that an assignee cannot recover more than the assignor does not prevent recovery in these circumstances, as the loss would have been recoverable by the assignor had it retained the property. The assignment does not create a 'legal black hole' and does not prejudice the contract-breaker beyond what would have been the case absent the assignment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal on the assignment point dismissed.
  • Applications for permission to appeal on the duty of care point refused with no order as to costs.