Image from Google Jackets

Malmesbury and others v Strutt and Parker [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWHC 2199 (QB), 9 October 2007. Considers whether a sum of damages previously awarded could be increased after an order giving effect to that judgment was in place. The applicant (M) was the owner of a car park who had previously established (L138156) that the defendant surveyors (S) had been negligent in failing to provide advice as to the setting of rent pursuant to income from the car park. It had been established that assessment of the damages was to be determined relating to value at the time of the transaction (L138264). M applied for an increase in the amount of compensation to be paid by S. "Held": It was only possible for the judge to alter such an order, in appropriate circumstances, prior to its taking effect. This order was in place and so the only option available to a dissatisfied party was to appeal the decision. The order was to be treated as a bar for the court's ability to reconsider that issue. Application refused.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode
Law report London Journal article ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 140978-1001

[2007] EWHC 2199 (QB), 9 October 2007. Considers whether a sum of damages previously awarded could be increased after an order giving effect to that judgment was in place. The applicant (M) was the owner of a car park who had previously established (L138156) that the defendant surveyors (S) had been negligent in failing to provide advice as to the setting of rent pursuant to income from the car park. It had been established that assessment of the damages was to be determined relating to value at the time of the transaction (L138264). M applied for an increase in the amount of compensation to be paid by S. "Held": It was only possible for the judge to alter such an order, in appropriate circumstances, prior to its taking effect. This order was in place and so the only option available to a dissatisfied party was to appeal the decision. The order was to be treated as a bar for the court's ability to reconsider that issue. Application refused.