Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
MS C. JACKSON (instructed by Zermansky & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. MR. P. LETMAN (instructed by Saunders) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. ____________________
Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO Official Shorthand Writers and Tape Transcribers Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
(a) the payment by the defendant to the claimant of the �73,994.03 due under the original contract,
(c) the carrying out by the claimant of certain remedial works, which did not include any works in respect of the air extraction system in the basement, since at that stage this had not been identified as a problem.
As previously noted, the principal reason why this litigation was commenced, and I believe the overwhelming reason why it was fought all the way through to the end, was because the claimant refused to abandon its claim for additional works. As Ms Jackson fairly conceded, that was a part of the case on which the claimant was wholly unsuccessful. Again therefore, on that part of the case, which was the second element of the claimant's claim, the defendant was the successful party.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.