Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Not stated
Respondents Arguments
Courts
decision
reasoning
RUSH & TOMPKINS LTD V. GREATER LONDON COUNCIL & ANOR [1988] 3 ALL
ER 737 (HOUSE OF LORDS)
Summary of Facts
The appellants, Rush & Tompkins Ltd, entered into a building contract in December
1971 with the Greater London Council (the GLC) to build 639 dwellings.
Later, Rush & Tompkins engaged the respondents, P J Carey Plant Hire (Oval) Ltd
(Careys), as sub-contractors to carry out ground works required under the main
contract.
The completion of the contract was subject to much disruption and delay in which
Careys then put in claims for loss and expense to Rush & Tompkins.
Rush & Tompkins for their part maintained that they were entitled to be reimbursed by
the GLC in respect of these claims for loss and expense under the sub-contract. It
appears that the GLC would not agree with Careys' claim and consequently Rush &
Tompkins would not pay it.
However, before these proceedings came to trial Rush & Tompkins entered into a
compromise with the GLC in which Rush & Tompkins accepted the sum of
1,200,000 in settlement of all outstanding claims under the main contract. It was a
term of this settlement that Rush & Tompkins would accept direct responsibility for all
the sub-contractors' claims.
Rush & Tompkins then discontinued the action against the GLC.
The terms of this settlement were disclosed to Careys but the settlement did not show
what valuation had been put on Careys' claim in arriving at the global settlement of
1,200,000.
Careys eventually added a counterclaim to recover their loss and expense which they
quantified at 150,583.
In their statement of claim Rush & Tompkins had pleaded that the GLC had stated in
writing that the claim of Carey did not exceed a value of approximately 10,000.
Respondents Arguments
(Careys, sub-contractor)
They admit that there are such documents, but they maintain
that Careys are not entitled to discovery of these documents
because they came into existence for the purpose of settling the
claim with the GLC and are thus protected from discovery by
the without prejudice rule.
Lord Griffiths:
The without prejudice rule applies to exclude all
negotiations genuinely aimed at settlement whether
oral or in writing from being given in evidence.
Defendant Arguments
case
respondent. Again, the OTS was served for the second time and wasnt
accepted by respondent.
This matter went to trial and the judge held that the appellant is 80%
liable thus ordered him to pay the damages to R and costs. The A who
dissatisfied with the decision, applied to the Mgt Court for leave to
appeal against it and district judge refused to grant. Then the A applied
to the High Court against the order made by Mgt Court, however the
Mgt Courts decision was affirmed by the HC.
The appellant appeal against HC and filed a summons in chambers for
leave to appeal to the COA. This is the case from COA.
Appellant
That the respondent was not entitled to costs, given that the judgment
sum awarded in her favour was lower than the amount it had offered
argumen
ts
respondents claim for a sum of $6, 322 but the respondent rejected
the OTS (offer to settle)
Responden
ts
Arguments
N/A
Court
Decision
1) The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It
has been a rule of the common law that wherever power was given to a
legal authority to grant or refuse to leave the appeal, the decision of
Ground of
judgment
that authority was, from the nature of thing, final and conclusive.
2) Since S21(1) of Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322,
1999 Rev Ed) read with O55D r 4(3) of the Rules appointed that the HC
as the authority with the final jurisdiction to grant or refuse leave to
appeal againts a Mgts decision & there could be no further recourse
after the HC
3) The OTS (Calderbank letter) issued is not a valid OTS
required by statutory under O22A. Order 22A r 1 is precise on the
form that an OTS must take shall be in form 38A and the required
form is obligatory.
Sie Choon Poh (trading as Image Galaxy) v Amara Hotel Properties Pte Ltd [2008] SGHC 24
High Court , Andrew Ang J
Summary of Facts
This was an appeal against the assistant registrars (the AR) assessment of damages payable
to the plaintiff arising from the spillage of waste water into the plaintiffs shop premises from
a burst waste-water pipe in the defendant landlords building of which the premises let to the
plaintiff formed part.
At the assessment of damages before the AR, the plaintiff was awarded $5,000 for loss of
goodwill and $11,046.76 for loss of profits. Notably, the AR declined to make any award of
damages in respect of mental distress or damage to machines and equipment. Neither was an
indemnity ordered. What came across very clearly from the ARs grounds of decision (the
GD) was that the plaintiff had failed to discharge burden of proof, there being a glaring lack
of documentary evidence and witness testimony to support the claims he was making of the
GD). Moreover, the AR also formed the view that the Plaintiffs own responses during crossexamination were equivocal at best, evasive at worst
The plaintiff had five heads of claim:
(a) estimated loss resulting from damage to photocopying machines
(b) damages for loss of earnings
(c) an indemnity for all sums due and owing to Hitachi Leasing Pte Ltd and Canon
Singapore as a result of the return of machinery
(d) damages for loss of goodwill; and
(e) damages for distress and disappointment
Issue: Whether offer to settle can be taken into account eventhough not in prescribed
form
Plaintiffs Arguments
NIL
Defendants Arguments
Courts
decision
reasoning
NIL
the defendants offer to settle had been made more than two
years before the assessment of damages was disposed of by the
AR. Although the offer to settle was not in the form prescribed
by O 22A r 1 of the Rules of the court was of the view that it
was not precluded from taking it into account and ordered that
there be no order as to costs below.