MacKay & Anor v Walter Lilly & Company Ltd (Rev 1)

MacKay & Anor v Walter Lilly & Company Ltd (Rev 1)

The application for permission to appeal is refused because the trial judge's findings of fact were not challenged, his construction of the contract and approach to global claims were correct, and the cross-check issue was adequately addressed.

Parties
Appellant: Walter Lilly and Company Limited; Respondents: Mackay and Another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Delay Claims, Global Claims, Contractual Notice Requirements
Construction Law Contract Law Building Contracts Delay Claims Global Claims Contractual Notice Requirements

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

Walter Lilly and Company Limited

Appellant

Mackay and Another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the construction of contractual notice requirements under Clause 26 of the JCT contract
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in his approach to global claims
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to conduct a proper cross-check of sums awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal is refused because the trial judge's findings of fact were not challenged, his construction of the contract and approach to global claims were correct, and the cross-check issue was adequately addressed.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused