We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Rust Consulting Limited (in liquidation) v PB
Limited (formerly Kennedy & Donkin Limited) [2012],
CA
Rust sought to claim under an indemnity given by PB when it
purchased Rust business. PB assumed "responsibility for the
... discharge of all the outstanding liabilities and contracts of
[Rust's] business" and indemnified Rust against all claims
etc in respect of such liabilities. Liabilities were defined by
reference to the accounts at completion. Ten years later, a client
of Rust claimed against Rust in negligence for faulty advice given.
PB took over the defence of the claim and consented to judgment
being entered in favour of the client against Rust for about
Ł8 million. Rust's liquidators later claimed against PB
under the indemnity in respect of the consent judgment.
The judge held PB did not have any liability. The definition of
liabilities required an actual liability to be established. A
consent judgment sum did not establish actual liability.
The Court of Appeal allowed Rust's appeal. PB had not only
consented to the judgment in the client's favour, but had also
instructed Rust to submit to judgment being entered against it. It
should not be open to a party who caused judgment to be entered in
the belief that it was in its financial interest to challenge the
reasonableness of it when it later perceived its commercial
interest differently.
Comment
The Court of Appeal adopted common sense reasoning which
prevailed over the rather formalistic reasoning of the High
Court.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Those of you who are familiar now with the portal process may know the answer to the question – does responding to a settlement offer one day after the 15 working day time frame mean the offer is withdrawn or does it still stand?
A discussion on a recent case, where the High Court departed from the normal costs rules that follow an offer to settle intended to have the costs consequences associated with Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Some important changes to costs in legal proceedings take effect from 1 April 2013. One such change affects the operation of Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs).
Hkruk II (CHC) Limited v Marcus Alexander Heaney [2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch) is about a land owner who obtains an injunction against a developer to protect his rights to light.
The biggest recent overhaul of civil litigation procedure will take effect on 1 April 2013, as a result of Lord Justice Jackson’s report on civil litigation costs. Stuart Evans and Liane Bylett from our Commercial Disputes Team explain the five key areas of reform in commercial disputes and what these changes will mean for you.
Slade v TNT [EAT/0113/11] considered the lawfulness and reasonableness of the employer’s actions in attempting to change employment contracts by terminating existing contracts in accordance with their notice provisions and offer new, revised terms in their place.
If an adjudicator has made a mistake (even a serious one) in his decision, the error will not invalidate the decision. Given the time limits involved, adjudication is an inherently "rough and ready" process, and the courts have emphasised that any mistakes should be dealt with by way of final determination by the courts or arbitration.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
