North Sea Ventilation Ltd v Consafe Engineering (UK) Ltd

North Sea Ventilation Ltd v Consafe Engineering (UK) Ltd

There is sufficient evidence of a course of conduct potentially dispensing with the strict requirements of clause GC35 to justify granting permission to appeal, even though the issue is largely factual.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: North Sea Ventilation Limited; Respondent/defendant: Consafe Engineering (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Variation of Contract, Estoppel by Conduct, Burden of Proof, Building Contracts

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North Sea Ventilation Limited

Applicant/claimant

Consafe Engineering (UK) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the parties varied or dispensed with the strict requirements of clause GC35 by their conduct
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in assessing the weight of evidence regarding the course of conduct
  3. 3 Whether the claimants met the burden of proof to show the contract terms were not to apply

Ratio Decidendi

There is sufficient evidence of a course of conduct potentially dispensing with the strict requirements of clause GC35 to justify granting permission to appeal, even though the issue is largely factual.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal granted
  • Time estimate for hearing set at one-and-a-half to two days before a three judge court (which may include a High Court judge)