Lewis (T/A RL Services) v McNicholl Hughes Ltd & Anor [2023] NICA 17 (09 March 2023)

Lewis (T/A RL Services) v McNicholl Hughes Ltd & Anor [2023] NICA 17 (09 March 2023)

The CPHA Model Conditions, including the indemnity clause, were implied into the contract between plaintiff and defendants by custom and practice in the construction industry. Defendants, having industry knowledge and having hired the machine, were contractually obliged to indemnify plaintiff for the loss by fire.

Citation
[2023] NICA 17
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Ronald Lewis, trading as RL Services; Defendant/appellant: McNicholl Hughes Limited; Defendant/appellant: Eugene McNicholl
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
09 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order at first instance affirmed.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Custom and Practice, Indemnity Clauses, Breach of Contract, Hire Agreements
Contract Law Commercial Law Insurance Law Implied Terms Custom and Practice Indemnity Clauses Breach of Contract Hire Agreements

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Lewis, trading as RL Services

Plaintiff/respondent

McNicholl Hughes Limited

Defendant/appellant

Eugene McNicholl

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract existed between plaintiff and defendants for hire of machinery
  2. 2 Whether CPHA Model Conditions, including indemnity clause, were implied into the contract by custom and practice
  3. 3 Whether defendants were obliged to indemnify plaintiff for loss by fire

Ratio Decidendi

The CPHA Model Conditions, including the indemnity clause, were implied into the contract between plaintiff and defendants by custom and practice in the construction industry. Defendants, having industry knowledge and having hired the machine, were contractually obliged to indemnify plaintiff for the loss by fire.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order at first instance affirmed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay plaintiff £35,000 plus costs.