||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 42 (Apr)
||Technology and Construction Court
Judge Anthony Thornton QC
||John Slater QC and James Medd (instructed by Masons, Leeds) for the claimant.
||Richard Gray QC and Parishil Patel (instructed by Winward Fearon) for the defendant.
||15 March 2002
Building contract - Damages - Measure of damages - Defendant not following variation procedure in contract - Defendant disputing costs of variations - Defendant having access to claimant's accounts - Claimant financing variations by way of loans from holding company - Compound interest charged monthly rather than quarterly - Whether claimant entitled to recover compound interest - Whether claimant entitled to compound interest at more onerous rests.
In all the circumstances, the claimant was entitled to claim compound interest charged by its holding company on loans to finance variations of the contract between the parties since such interest was a 'reimbursable cost' under the contract by being 'a percentage mark-up to cover all cost and overheads.' Furthermore, since the defendant had access to the claimant's accounts, that claim could also be made as one for breach of contract. Neither basis of claim, however, justified recovery of interest compounded at monthly rests since that was more onerous than the normal finance arrangements provided by a bank.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary