Image from Google Jackets

Offer-Hoar and others v Larkstore Ltd and others

Language: English Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWHC 2742 (TCC), 2 December 2005. Concerns a claim by the owners (O-H) of development land for damages sustained through a landslip allegedly caused by excavations carried out on the first defendant's (L) land by the second defendant contractor (B). L had purchased O-H's development site with planning permission and had been assigned a geo-technical report obtained by O-H from specialists T. L had relied on the report to fulfil a condition of the planning permission for the development: the assignment expressly included the right to sue T if it breached its duties and obligations. L agreed to pay O-H in return for the assignment 50% of the net monies received from T in respect of any proceedings arising from any assigned cause of action. L also commenced a Part 20 claim against T for the recovery of part of its losses from T and to ascertain whether T owed a duty of care either to O-H or L. "Held": the assignment was valid: the report was a vital part of the planning permission being sold with the land. T owed no duty of care to L in respect of its economic loss but did owe a duty of care to O-H in respect of the damage caused to their properties.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 132077-2001

[2005] EWHC 2742 (TCC), 2 December 2005. Concerns a claim by the owners (O-H) of development land for damages sustained through a landslip allegedly caused by excavations carried out on the first defendant's (L) land by the second defendant contractor (B). L had purchased O-H's development site with planning permission and had been assigned a geo-technical report obtained by O-H from specialists T. L had relied on the report to fulfil a condition of the planning permission for the development: the assignment expressly included the right to sue T if it breached its duties and obligations. L agreed to pay O-H in return for the assignment 50% of the net monies received from T in respect of any proceedings arising from any assigned cause of action. L also commenced a Part 20 claim against T for the recovery of part of its losses from T and to ascertain whether T owed a duty of care either to O-H or L. "Held": the assignment was valid: the report was a vital part of the planning permission being sold with the land. T owed no duty of care to L in respect of its economic loss but did owe a duty of care to O-H in respect of the damage caused to their properties.