Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 42 (Apr)
Court: Technology and Construction Court

Judge Anthony Thornton QC

Representation 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.
Judgment Dates: 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.

The Case

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.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.