HART STUDIES IN PRIVATE LAW

MONEY AWARDS
IN CONTRACT
LAW
David Winterton



MONEY AWARDS IN CONTRACT LAW
The quantification of contractual money awards is a topic of both significant theoretical interest and immense practical importance. Recent debates have ranged
from the availability of gain-based relief to the basis for principles of remoteness
and mitigation. While these and other important issues, such as the recovery of
damages for non-pecuniary loss, are touched upon, the book’s principal objective is to challenge the conventional interpretation of the principle generally
acknowledged to govern this area of the law, which Parke B famously laid down in
Robinson v Harman. According to this conventional interpretation, the objective
of all money awards given in accordance with the Robinson v Harman principle
is simply to ‘compensate’ the promisee for the ‘loss’ that can be attributed to the
promisor’s failure to perform as promised.
After challenging this orthodoxy, Dr Winterton proposes a new understanding of the Robinson v Harman principle, which draws an important distinction
between money awards that substitute for the performance promised and money
awards that aim to make good certain detrimental factual consequences that can
be attributed to a promisor’s breach. In exploring the significance of this distinction, the different principles underpinning the quantification and restriction of
each kind of award are explored in addition to some important theoretical issues
such as the effect that the occurrence of a breach has on the rights generated by
contract formation. The book’s unifying objective is to outline a coherent picture
of the law of contractual money awards. It will be of interest to judges, practitioners and academics alike.
Volume 13 in the series Hart Studies in Private Law

Money Awards in
Contract Law

David Winterton

OXFORD AND PORTLAND, OREGON
2015


Published in the United Kingdom by Hart Publishing Ltd
16C Worcester Place, Oxford, OX1 2JW
Telephone: +44 (0)1865 517530
Fax: +44 (0)1865 510710
E-mail:
Website:
Published in North America (US and Canada) by
Hart Publishing
c/o International Specialized Book Services
920 NE 58th Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, OR 97213-3786
USA
Tel: +1 503 287 3093 or toll-free: (1) 800 944 6190
Fax: +1 503 280 8832
E-mail:
Website:
© David Winterton 2015
David Winterton has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, to be
identified as the author of this work.
Hart Publishing is an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing plc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of Hart Publishing, or
as expressly permitted by law or under the terms agreed with the appropriate reprographic rights
organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction which may not be covered by the above
should be addressed to Hart Publishing Ltd at the address above.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data Available
ISBN: 978-1-84946-457-4
ISBN (ePDF): 978-1-78225-295-5


FOREWORD
BY
JUSTICE STEPHEN GAGELER

High Court of Australia
It is now almost 170 years since Baron Parke enunciated his ‘ruling principle’1 with
respect to damages for breach of contract at common law. The theoretical difficulties inherent in the outworking of that longstanding principle did not need to be
addressed while common law procedure left damages to be determined by juries.
The theoretical difficulties began to emerge as procedural reforms transferred
questions of the quantification of damages increasingly to judges whose processes
of reasoning were required to be articulated in their reasons for judgment. Despite
significant common law developments in principles of contractual liability, the
law of contract damages long remained largely un-theorised. Just over 100 years
ago it could still be said that ‘[t]he quantum of damage is a question of fact, and
the only guidance the law can give is to lay down general principles which afford
at times but scanty assistance in particular cases’.2
Fuller and Perdue took an important step in the identification and articulation of intermediate principles of contract damages in their highly influential
taxonomy of measures of financial loss which may flow from a breach of contract.3 Yet just under 20 years ago it could still be remarked that a simple question of contract damages could result in a wide variety of judicial opinion.4 More
recent divisions of opinion as to the appropriate method of quantifying damages
in novel but uncomplicated fact situations, in cases in the House of Lords5 and in

the High Court of Australia,6 serve to illustrate the depth of the theoretical issues
that remain.
1 Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272, 286, quoting Wertheim v
Chicoutimi Pulp Co [1911] AC 301 (PC) 307.
2 British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co v Underground Electric Railways Co of London
[1912] AC 673 (HL) 688.
3 L. Fuller and W. Perdue, ‘The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages’ (1936) 46 Yale Law
Journal 52.
4 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 (HL) 361.
5 Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory) [2007] UKHL
12, [2007] 2 AC 353.
6 Clark v Macourt (2013) 88 ALJR 190, [2013] HCA 56.


vi

Foreword

David Winterton in this book grapples with those deep philosophical issues.
His contribution to the theorisation of contract damages is bold and ambitious.
Critiquing Fuller and Perdue philosophically and analytically, Winterton provides
an alternative theoretical explanation of the burgeoning mass of existing case law.
His explanation is based on a conceptual framework within which the fundamental distinction is between damages which substitute for performance of a contract
and damages which compensate for loss caused by non-performance.
The thesis presented is developed through the application of what is helpfully
identified in explicit terms as an ‘interpretative’ methodology, in which ‘principle’
is given primacy over ‘policy’, and in which ‘principle’ is charted as the line of most
rational fit with the data provided by the decided cases. It is inevitable in the application of such a methodology that some aspects of the existing case law will be
elevated, and other aspects of the existing case law de-emphasised, so as to achieve
a rational fit with the conceptual distinction propounded. It is also inevitable that

the distinction itself will require qualification and refinement so as to accommodate those aspects of the existing case law which the premises of the methodology
require to be accepted. There will inevitably be flow-on effects to related doctrines.
Not all aspects of all of the decided cases can be expected to survive unquestioned.
Not every required qualification or refinement of the conceptual framework, nor
every flow-on effect, can be expected to be recognised and articulated. No conceptual framework, new or old, can be expected to provide all answers to all problems;
at best it can bring a measure of structure and consistency to the analysis of those
problems, and a measure of predictability to the outcomes of that analysis. A new
conceptual framework brings its own novel set of issues to be worked through,
and tested, from case to case.
Conscious of those ramifications of the ambitiousness of his project, David
Winterton has done much to explain how many principles, including those of
remoteness and mitigation, are to be fitted into his new conceptual framework, to
anticipate some major objections to the framework, and to suggest how it might
prove useful in practice in shedding new light on problems which have shown
themselves to be difficult to resolve in the past. Economic and social consequences
of adopting the new conceptual framework, including the systemic impact of the
incentives it might create for contracting parties, are left for future exploration. The
book is a welcome addition to the literature in a field for too long under-theorised.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is a revised and updated version of the doctoral thesis I defended in
Oxford in October, 2011. Its production has depended heavily on assistance from
numerous sources. In Justice James Edelman and Professor John Gardner, I had
the benefit of two dedicated and inspirational DPhil supervisors who guided me
carefully along the path to completion. From each of them I learned a great deal
and I am extremely grateful for the support they provided during my time in
Oxford. I also wish to express my deep gratitude to both the Rhodes Trust and
Magdalen College for the generous support, financial and otherwise, that each

institution afforded me during the course of my studies, as well as to Richard Hart
for backing the project, and to his fantastic team for their hard work in helping to
bring it to fruition.
Via written comments, conversations, or simply friendship, numerous others
also contributed to this book’s production. In this regard, I would particularly
like to thank Scott Ralston, Carmine Conte, Fred Wilmot-Smith, Andrew Dyson,
Andrew Lodder, Eli Ball and Tatiana Cutts for astute comments on earlier drafts
and for their general willingness to engage in fruitful discussion on the topic. Ben
Spagnolo deserves special praise in this regard; in addition to providing me with
me a plethora of insightful comments, he was also instrumental in the very practical task of producing the final thesis document itself. I also wish to express my
appreciation to Gageler J for kindly agreeing to write a foreword to the book and
for his willingness to engage with me in discussion about some of its central concerns following publication of the High Court’s reasons in Clark v Macourt [2013]
HCA 56. My final debt of gratitude is to my parents. Without my father’s encouragement and example of fine scholarship I may never have embarked upon this
project and without my mother’s support and understanding I may never have
finished it.



SUMMARY CONTENTS

Foreword .....................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... vii
Detailed Contents...................................................................................................... xi
Table of Cases ...........................................................................................................xix
Table of Legislation ................................................................................................xxxi

Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Part I: The Inadequacy of the Orthodox Understanding
of Contractual Money Awards
1. An Overview of the Orthodox Account .............................................................23

2. The Doctrinal Inaccuracy of the Orthodox Account ........................................44
3. Conceptual and Terminological Difficulties with
the Orthodox Account ........................................................................................97
Part II: A New Account of Contractual Money Awards
4. Foundations of the New Account.....................................................................133
5. Money Awards that Substitute for Performance .............................................178
6. Money Awards that Compensate for Loss .......................................................216
Part III: The New Account in Practice
7. Explaining Some Important Decisions in Tension with
the Orthodox Account ......................................................................................261
8. Defusing Some Potential Doctrinal Objections ..............................................285
Conclusion .............................................................................................................316

Index .......................................................................................................................323



DETAILED CONTENTS

Foreword .....................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... vii
Summary Contents ................................................................................................... ix
Table of Cases ...........................................................................................................xix
Table of Legislation ................................................................................................xxxi

Introduction...............................................................................................................1
I. Context and Motivation ...............................................................................1
II. An Overview of the Argument ....................................................................2
III. The Need for the Proposed Distinction ......................................................5
IV. The Place of Theory .....................................................................................8

A. The Kind of Substitutionary Account Proposed .................................8
B. The Distinction Between ‘Principle’ and ‘Policy’ ..............................11
C. The Theoretical Basis for the Proposed Distinction .........................12
V. The Structure of the Book .........................................................................12
A. Part I ....................................................................................................13
B. Part II...................................................................................................14
C. Part III .................................................................................................15
VI. Methodology ..............................................................................................16
A. An Interpretative Approach ...............................................................16
B. Why Take this Approach? ...................................................................19
Part I: The Inadequacy of the Orthodox Understanding of
Contractual Money Awards
1. An Overview of the Orthodox Account ............................................................23
I. Introduction ...............................................................................................23
II. The Conventional Interpretation of the Robinson v Harman
Principle ......................................................................................................24
A. The Principle’s Indeterminacy ...........................................................24
1. Indeterminacy as to Purpose ......................................................24
2. Indeterminacy as to Scope ..........................................................25
B. The Meaning of ‘Loss’ in the Orthodox Account ..............................26
1. A Focus on the Financial Consequences of Breach ...................26
2. Limited Recognition of Non-Pecuniary Consequences ............28
III. Expanding Recovery for Non-Pecuniary Loss ..........................................30
A. Damages for ‘Mental Distress’ and ‘Physical Inconvenience’ ...........30
1. Two Exceptions to the General Bar on Recovery .......................30


xii

Detailed Contents

2. The Decision in Farley v Skinner ................................................32
3. More Recent Developments ........................................................33
B. Damages for ‘Loss of Amenity’ ..........................................................35
1. Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth .........................................................35
2. Subsequent Judicial Analysis of Ruxley ......................................40
IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................42

2. The Doctrinal Inaccuracy of the Orthodox Account .......................................44
I. Introduction ...............................................................................................44
II. Two Clear Examples of Non-Compensatory Money Awards ..................45
A. Nominal Damages for Breach of Contract .......................................45
1. Conventional Nominal Damages ...............................................46
2. Substantial ‘Nominal’ Damages ..................................................46
B. Gain-Based Awards for Breach of Contract ......................................47
1. Attorney-General v Blake .............................................................48
2. Subsequent Case Law ..................................................................50
III. Other Awards Inconsistent with the Law’s Orthodox
Understanding............................................................................................51
A. Substantial Money Awards in the Three-Party Context ...................52
1. Specific Exceptions to the General Exclusionary Rule...............52
2. Extending ‘the Albazero Exception’.............................................54
3. The Significance of Panatown .....................................................57
4. Appraising the Current Legal Position .......................................59
B. Awards Based on a Hypothetical Release Bargain ............................60
1. Award In Lieu of a Restorative Injunction .................................60
2. Award for Breach of Exclusivity ..................................................66
3. Award for Breach of Confidentiality ..........................................67
C. Awards for the Breach of a Contract of Sale that
Exceed the Promisee’s Factual Loss ...................................................68
1. Non-delivery ................................................................................69

2. Late Delivery ................................................................................71
3. Defective Goods...........................................................................73
4. Summary of the Sale of Goods Case Law...................................78
D. Contractual Awards in Other Contexts that
Exceed the Promisee’s Factual Loss ...................................................79
1. Contracts of Carriage ..................................................................79
2. Contracts of Employment ..........................................................81
3. Building Repairs ..........................................................................82
4. Breach of Tenant’s Obligation to Repair ....................................84
5. Breach of Restrictive Covenant in Relation to Goods ...............85
E. Awards Exceeding Factual Loss Due to the
Accrual of Post-Breach Benefits.........................................................87
1. Loss Reduced or Eliminated by a Third Party Payment ............89
2. Loss Reduced or Eliminated by Other Post-Breach Events .......89
IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................95


Detailed Contents

xiii

3. Conceptual and Terminological Difficulties
with the Orthodox Account ...............................................................................97
I. Introduction ...............................................................................................97
II. The Conceptual Inadequacy of the Orthodox Account ...........................98
A. Fuller and Perdue’s Challenge ............................................................98
1. Questioning the Priority of the Expectation Measure...............98
2. Response ....................................................................................100
B. The Significance of Fuller and Perdue’s Critique............................101
1. The Dominance of the Compensatory Paradigm....................101

2. Preoccupation with the Appropriate Measure of Loss ............103
III. The Meaning of ‘Loss’ in English Contract Law .....................................104
A. General Ambiguity Surrounding the Meaning of Loss ..................104
1. The Relationship Between Loss and Harm ..............................105
2. Distinguishing Damage and Injury ..........................................106
B. Clarifying the Meaning of Loss........................................................107
1. Three Different Conceptions of Loss in English
Contract Law .............................................................................107
2. The Best Interpretations of ‘Loss’, ‘Damage’,
‘Injury’ and ‘Harm’ ....................................................................109
3. Explaining the Proposed Interpretation of Loss ......................111
IV. Other Sources of Terminological Uncertainty .......................................113
A. The Meaning of ‘Damages’...............................................................114
1. The Conventional Understanding of ‘Damages’ ......................114
2. A Superior Definition................................................................115
B. The Meaning of ‘Compensation’ .....................................................117
1. The Orthodox Understanding ..................................................117
2. Alternative Judicial Conceptions of ‘Compensation’...............118
3. Alternative Academic Conceptions of ‘Compensation’ ...........120
4. The Proposed Definition...........................................................121
C. The Concept of a Legal Remedy ......................................................123
1. Legal Rights ................................................................................123
2. The Proposed Definition of a Legal ‘Remedy’..........................124
3. Classifying Legal Remedies .......................................................125
D. The Need for New Terminology ......................................................127
V. Conclusion ...............................................................................................128
Part II: A New Account of Contractual Money Awards
4. Foundations of the New Account ....................................................................133
I. Introduction .............................................................................................133
II. A Defence of the Right to Contractual Performance .............................134

A. The Basic ‘Holmesian’ Objection.....................................................134
B. Overcoming this Objection .............................................................135
1. Understanding English Law’s Approach to
Coercive Relief ...........................................................................136


xiv

Detailed Contents
2. Additional Doctrinal Support for the Right
to Performance ..........................................................................141
3. Theoretical Support: The Nature of Legal Rights ....................146
III. The Doctrinal Basis for the Distinction Between Substitution
and Compensation...................................................................................148
A. Historical Foundations ....................................................................149
1. The Distinction at Common Law .............................................150
2. The Distinction in Equity .........................................................151
B. The Action for the Agreed Sum .......................................................153
1. Two Limits on the Recovery of Contractual Debts..................153
2. A Claim in Debt is not a Claim for Loss ..................................156
C. Money Awards In Lieu of Specific Performance .............................157
1. The Law in England...................................................................157
2. The Canadian Position ..............................................................159
D. Other Clear Examples of Substitutionary Money Awards .............160
1. The Right to Recover Under a Deed .........................................161
2. Contracts for the Sale of Goods................................................161
3. Contracts for the Provision of Services ....................................162
E. Restrictions on Compensatory Recovery do not Apply to
Substitutionary Awards ....................................................................165
1. Mitigation ..................................................................................165

2. Remoteness ................................................................................166
IV. Theoretical Underpinnings of the New Account ...................................167
A. The Kind of Substitutionary Account Advanced ............................168
1. Professor Stevens’s ‘Substitutive Damages’ Theory..................168
2. Dissimilarities from the Account Proposed Here ....................169
B. The Theoretical Basis for the Proposed Distinction.......................172
1. The Uncertain Relationship Between Substantial
and Remedial Rights in English Contract Law ........................172
2. Towards a Superior Account .....................................................173
V. Conclusion ...............................................................................................176

5. Money Awards that Substitute for Performance ............................................178
I. Introduction .............................................................................................178
II. Awards of the Cost of Substitute Performance.......................................179
A. Quantification ..................................................................................179
1. Justification ................................................................................180
2. Doctrinal Support .....................................................................183
B. Restriction.........................................................................................188
1. Restriction on the Ground of ‘Reasonableness’ .......................189
2. The Uncertain Meaning of ‘Reasonableness’
in this Context ...........................................................................190
3. Against a Focus on Intention ....................................................196
4. Understanding the ‘Reasonableness’ Restriction .....................199


Detailed Contents

xv

III. Awards of the Price of ‘Release’ from Further Performance ..................201

A. Quantification ..................................................................................202
1. Justification ................................................................................202
2. Doctrinal Support .....................................................................206
B. Restriction.........................................................................................210
1. The Current Position.................................................................211
2. Future Direction ........................................................................213
IV. Conclusion ...............................................................................................214
6. Money Awards that Compensate for Loss ......................................................216
I. Introduction .............................................................................................216
II. Fitting Compensatory Awards into the
New Account ............................................................................................218
A. The Theoretical Basis for Compensatory
Money Awards ..................................................................................218
1. The Controversial Status of the Secondary
Duty to Repair ...........................................................................218
2. Significance of this Debate for the Argument
of this Book ................................................................................221
B. Two Inherent Limits on the Recovery of Compensation
for Breach of Contract .....................................................................222
1. The Causation Principle............................................................223
2. The Prohibition on Double Recovery ......................................226
3. Summary and Preview ..............................................................227
III. Understanding the Restrictions Applicable to
Compensatory Money Awards ................................................................228
A. Remoteness .......................................................................................229
1. The Orthodox Approach ...........................................................230
2. The Challenge Posed by The Achilleas ......................................231
3. Subsequent English Decisions ..................................................234
4. A Defence of the Orthodox Approach .....................................236
5. Can the Agreement-Centred View be Salvaged? ......................244

6. Summary....................................................................................246
B. Mitigation .........................................................................................247
1. The Rules of ‘Mitigation’ ...........................................................248
2. Not Agreement Based ................................................................251
3. Not an Aspect of ‘Remoteness’..................................................252
C. Restrictions on Recovery for Non-Pecuniary Loss .........................253
1. Not Agreement Based ................................................................254
2. Not an Aspect of ‘Remoteness’..................................................255
IV. Conclusion ...............................................................................................256


xvi

Detailed Contents
Part III: The New Account in Practice

7. Explaining Some Important Decisions in Tension with
the Orthodox Account......................................................................................261
I. Introduction .............................................................................................261
II. Substitutionary Awards for the Cost of Repairs .....................................261
A. The Law Prior to Ruxley ...................................................................262
B. Making Sense of the Ruxley Decision..............................................264
1. Refusal to Award the Cost of Substitute Performance .............264
2. The Award for ‘Loss of Amenity’ ..............................................270
III. Panatown: Substitutionary Awards in the Three-Party Context ...........273
A. Availability of an Award of the Cost of Substitute
Performance......................................................................................273
B. Availability of an Award in Substitution for the Right to
Timely Performance .........................................................................274
C. Two Further Matters ........................................................................275

IV. Contractual Awards in the Sale of Goods Context.................................277
A. Awards for Breach by the Buyer.......................................................277
B. Awards for Breach by the Seller .......................................................278
1. Availability of an Award for Non-Delivery ..............................278
2. Availability of an Award for Defective Goods ..........................279
3. Availability of an Award for Late Delivery ...............................283
V. Conclusion ...............................................................................................284
8. Defusing Some Potential Doctrinal Objections .............................................285
I. Introduction .............................................................................................285
II. The Significance, Application and Scope of
the Golden Victory Principle ....................................................................286
A. The Golden Victory: Prospective Loss Reduced by
an Extraneous Event .........................................................................286
1. The Facts and Decisions Below.................................................286
2. The Decision in the House of Lords .........................................287
3. Subsequent Controversy ...........................................................289
4. The Preferable Analysis .............................................................291
B. Leofelis v Lonsdale: Prospective Loss Reduced by
the Contract’s Early Termination ....................................................294
1. The Decision ..............................................................................294
2. A Defence of the Decision.........................................................296
C. The Glory Wealth: Prospective Loss Must be Proved
on the Balance of Probabilities ........................................................302
1. The Decision ..............................................................................302
2. A Defence of the Decision.........................................................305


Detailed Contents

xvii


III. Specific Performance, ‘Mitigation’ and Damages
In Lieu of Coercive Relief ........................................................................307
A. The Relationship Between Specific Performance
and ‘Mitigation’ ................................................................................307
1. A Restatement of the Basic Principles ......................................307
2. The Decision in Southcott Estates .............................................308
3. A Preferable Understanding of the Law ...................................310
B. Damages In Lieu of Specific Performance ......................................312
1. The Decisions in Wroth and Semelhago ...................................312
2. Explaining Johnson v Agnew ......................................................313
IV. Conclusion ...............................................................................................314
Conclusion .............................................................................................................316
I. Summary of the Argument......................................................................316
II. Principal Conclusions and Implications.................................................319

Index .......................................................................................................................323



TABLE OF CASES

United Kingdom
Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488 (HL)...............................................29, 255, 354
AIB Group v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58 ..............................................315
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd (1998)
98 Construction L Rep 46 (CA) .........................................................................................57
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001]
1 AC 518 (HL) .............................................................................. 3, 15, 19, 41–2, 55–9, 112,
163–4, 184, 190, 194–5, 201, 261,

264, 266, 273–6, 284, 301, 318
Allen v F O’Hearn & Co [1937] AC 213 (HL) .......................................................................53
Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting Ltd (in liq) v Johnson &
Higgins Ltd [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 157 ..............................................................................242
Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1954] 1 QB 292 (CA) ..........................................................100
Anguilla (Ahmed) bin Hadjee Mohamed Salleh Anguillia v
Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd [1938] AC 624 (PC) ............................................143
Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406 (CA) ............................................................................190
Araci v Fallon [2011] EWCA Civ 668 ..................................................................................141
Attorney General v Blake [1998] Ch 439 (CA)......................................................................61
Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268 (HL) ................... 3, 19, 47–51, 102, 109, 114–15,
119, 133, 165, 208, 226, 271–2, 298
Attorney-General v Guardian (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109 (HL) .............................................218
Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467......................................................................................223
Banco de Portugal v Waterlow & Sons Ltd [1932] AC 452 (HL)............................248, 267–8
Bank of Credit & Commerce International (in liq) v
Price Waterhouse (No 3) The Times 2 April 1998 ...........................................................225
Barlow v Broxbourne Borough Council [2003] EWCA
50 (QB); [2003] All ER (D) 208 (Jan)................................................................................34
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 .......................................................................223
Barrow v Arnaud (1846) 8 QB 595;115 ER 1000...................................................................69
Bear Stearns Bank Plc v Forum Global Equity Ltd
[2007] EWHC 1576 (Comm).....................................................................................76, 280
Bellingham v Dhillon [1973] 1 QB 304 .................................................................................94
Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson UK Ltd
[1998] QB 87 (CA) .......................................................................... 69, 75–6, 165, 167, 175,
279–80, 284
Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 (HL) ....................................................................52, 54, 137
Biggin v Permanite [1951] 1 KB 422 ......................................................................................80
Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 (HL) .....................................................................49, 107

Boone v Eyre (1777) 1 Hy.Bl 273 .....................................................................................7, 181
Bracewell v Appleby [1975] Ch 408 .....................................................................................205


xx

Table of Cases

Bradburn v Great Western Railway Co (1874–75) LR 10 Exch 1 ...................................89, 95
Braddon Towers Ltd v International Stores Ltd [1987] 1 EGLR 209 .................................138
Braithwaite v Foreign Hardwood Company [1905] 2 KB 543....................................... 303–4
British and Beningtons Ltd v NW Cachar Tea Co [1923] AC 48 (HL) ..........................8, 304
British Columbia and Vancouver, Island Spar, Lumber and Saw
Mill Co Ltd v Nettleship (1868) LR 3 CP 499 .........................................................237, 246
British Motor Trade Association v Gilbert [1951] 2 All ER 641 ...........................85–7, 208–9
British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v
Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912]
AC 673 (HL) ................................................................................. 15, 24, 27, 76–8, 87–8, 90,
108, 250, 278–82, 284, 308, 319
Brown v KMR Services Ltd [1995] 4 All ER 598 (CA)........................................................231
Bulkhaul Ltd v Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1452 ..................................69
Bwllfa and Methyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v
Pontypridd Waterworks Co [1903] AC 426 ........................................................288–9, 292
Callonel v Briggs (1703) 1 Salk 112; Holt KB 663 ..................................................................7
Campbell Mostyn (Provisions) Ltd v Barnett Trading Co
[1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 65 (CA) ...........................................................................................166
Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH
(The Hansa Nord) [1976] QB 44 (CA) ............................................................................143
Channel Island Ferries Ltd v Cenargo Navigation Ltd,
The Rozel [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 161 (CA) ........................................................................200

Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786 (CA) .................................................................................87
Clea Shipping v Bulk Oil International (No 2) [1984] 1 All ER 129 ..................................292
Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores Ltd
[1998] AC 1 (HL) .............................................................................. 101, 134, 137, 147, 198
Coles v Hetherton [2013] EWCA Civ 1704 ...........................................................................94
Compania Naviera Maropan SIA v Bowaters Lloyd Pulp
and Paper Mill Ltd (The Stork) [1955] 2 QB 68 (CA).....................................................253
Continental Contractors v Medway Oil and Storage Company
(1925) 23 Lloyd’s List Reports 124 ...................................................................................304
Cooper v Jarman (1866) LR 3 Eq 98 ....................................................................................143
Dalwood Marine Co v Nordana Line A/S (The Elbrus)
[2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 315 ....................................................................................................94
Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Limited
[1995] 1 WLR 68 (CA) ........................................................... 55–6, 59, 83, 195–6, 198, 265
Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696 (HL) ............................................145
De Beers Ltd v Atos Origin IT Services UK Ltd [2010]
EWHC 3276 (TCC) ..........................................................................................................196
Dean v Ainley [1987] 1 WLR 1729 (CA) ....................................................... 83, 196, 265, 270
Diamond Cutting Works Federation Ltd v Triefus & Co
Ltd [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 216 ..............................................................................................87
Diesen v Samson 1971 SLT 49 ................................................................................................30
Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384 (HL) ......................................................................... 281–2
Doherty v Allman (1878) 3 App Cas 709 (HL) ...................................................................141
DRC Distribution Ltd v Ulva Ltd [2007] EWHC 1716.........................................................60
Duke of St Albans v Shore (1789) 1 Hy.Bl 270 ....................................................................181
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor
Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 (HL) ...............................................................................................233


Table of Cases


xxi

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge [1915] AC 847 .................................................52
Dunlop v Lambert (1839) 6 Cl & F 600 ...................................................................53, 59, 276
Earl of Ripon v Hobart (1834) 3 My & K 169; 40 ER 65 ....................................................125
East Ham Corporation v Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd
[1966] AC 406 (HL) ..................................................................... 183–4, 189, 192, 194, 262
Edmunds v Lloyds Italico & l’Ancora Compagnia di Assicurazione
e Riassicurazione SpA [1986] 1 WLR 492 (CA) ..............................................................220
Ellen v Topp (1851) 6 Ex 424................................................................................................181
Environment Agency v Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd
[1999] 2 AC 22 ..................................................................................................................224
Erie County Natural Gas and Fuel Co v Carroll [1911]
AC 105 (PC) ..................................................................................................................88, 90
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Niad [2001] EWHC Ch 458 All ER
(D) 324 (Nov) (CA) ....................................................................................................... 50–1
Experience Hendrix LLC v PPS Enterprises Inc [2003] EWCA
Civ 323; [2003] FSR 46; [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 830 (CA) .........................51, 61–2, 212
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 ...........................................223
Famosa Shipping Co Ltd v Armada Bulk Carriers Ltd
(The Fanis) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 633.................................................................................94
Farley v Skinner [2000] PNLR 441 (CA) .............................................................................256
Farley v Skinner [2001] UKHL 49; [2002] 2 AC 732 ....................................... 3, 19, 30, 32–3,
40–1, 108, 112, 254–5
Flame SA v Glory Wealth Shipping PTE Ltd [2014]
2 WLR 1405; [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 653; [2013] EWHC 3153
(Comm); [2013] 2 CLC 527 ........................................................................................ 302–6
Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 (HL) ...........................................................................145
Ford v White & Co [1964] 1 WLR 885 (CA) .............................................26, 32, 139, 211–14

Ford-Hunt and another v Ragbhir Singh [1973] 1 WLR 738 (Ch) ....................................149
Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 81 M & W 540 ......................................................................218
Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel SAU
(formerly Travelplan SAU) of Spain (The New Flamenco)
[2014] EWHC 1547 (Comm)..........................................................................88, 94–5, 133,
227, 293, 303
Galoo Ltd v Bright Grahame Murray [1994] 1 WLR 1360 .................................................225
Gardner v Marsh & Parsons (a firm) [1997] 1 WLR 489;
[1996] EWCA Civ 940 ................................................................................................... 92–3
Garnac Grain Co Inc v HMF Faure & Fairclough Ltd
[1968] AC 1130 (HL) ........................................................................................................250
George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock (Seeds) Ltd
[1983] QB 284 (CA) .........................................................................................................143
Giedo Van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team
Limited [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB), noted (2012) 128 LQR 23 ............ 27, 59, 61, 108, 127,
163–5, 187–8, 195, 205,
212, 215, 273, 275, 298, 301
Gill & Duffus v Berger [1984] AC 382 (HL) ....................................................291, 303–4, 314
GKN Centrax Gears Ltd v Matbro Ltd [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555 (CA) .............................240
Glazebrook v Woodrow (1799) 8 TR 366 ............................................................................181
Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha
(The Golden Victory) [2005] EWCA Civ 1190 (CA) .......................................................287


xxii

Table of Cases

Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha
(The Golden Victory) [2005] EWHC 161 (Comm) .........................................................287

Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha
(The Golden Victory) [2007] UKHL 12; [2007] 2 AC 353 .................................. 3, 8, 10, 16,
19, 24, 70, 90, 108, 285–6,
288–305, 314–15, 319
Goss v Chilcott [1996] AC 788 (PC) ....................................................................................164
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85 (PC)............................................29, 108
Grant v Dawkins [1973] 3 All ER 897; [1973] 1 WLR 1406 ...............................................158
Greer v Alstons Engineering Services and Sales Ltd [2003] UKPC 46 ............................ 46–7
Griffith v Selby (1854) 9 Exch 393 ...........................................................................................8
Gur v Bruton, 29 July 1993 (CA)..........................................................................................159
GUS Property Management Ltd v Littlewoods Mail Order
Stores Ltd 1982 SC (HL).....................................................................................................56
H Dakin & Co Ltd v Lee [1916] KB 566 ................................................................................82
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 ................................................... 167, 222, 225, 230–1,
235–8, 240–7, 255, 282
Hamilton Jones v David & Snape [2004] 1 WLR 924 ...........................................................31
Harbutt’s ‘Plasticine’ v Wayne Tank & Pump Co [1970]
1 QB 447 (CA) ............................................................................................ 83, 133, 227, 293
Hasham v Zenab [1960] AC 316 (PC) ..................................................... 125–6, 145, 147, 226
Hatton v Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76............................................................................34
Heywood v Wellers [1976] 1 QB 446 (CA)............................................................................31
Hobbs v London & South Western Railway Co (1875) LR 10 QB 111 ..................28, 35, 108
Hochster v De la Tour (1853) 2 El & Bl 678; 118 ER 922........................................8, 144, 147
Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176 (CA) ...........................................................................262
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd
[1962] 2 QB 26 (CA) ........................................................................................................181
Horne v Midland Railway (1873) LR 8 CP 131 ...................................................................237
Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments [1971] Ch 233......................... 153–4
Hussey v Eels [1990] 2 QB 227 (CA) ................................................................................ 91–3
Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett [1995] 3 All ER 841 (CA) ..................................65, 206

Isabella Shipowner SA v Shagang Shipping Co Ltd (The Aquafaith)
[2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm)...........................................................................................155
Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468 (CA)..................................................54
Jackson v Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] UKHL 3; [2005] 1 WLR 377.............................231
Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269 (CA)...................................................................118, 210
Jamal v Moolla Dawood, Sons & Co [1916] 1 AC 175 (PC) ...............................................166
James v Hutton and Cook Ltd [1950] 1 KB 9 (CA) ............................................................198
Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233 (CA) ......................................................................30
Jebsen v East and West Indian Dock Company (1875) LR 10 CP 300 (CP) ........................90
Jefford v Gee [1970] 2 QB 130 (CA) ....................................................................................220
Jervis v Harris [1996] Ch 195 (CA) .....................................................................155–6, 165–6
Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794..................................................................223
John Grimes Partnership Ltd v Gubbins [2013] EWCA Civ 37 .................................235, 246
Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367 (HL) ...........................................................16, 158–60, 285,
308, 312–15, 319
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 (HL) ...............................................108, 111, 256
Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] UKHL 13; [2003] 1 AC 518 .............................. 29, 34, 108, 254


Table of Cases

xxiii

Jones v Just (1868) LR 3 QB 197 ............................................................................................69
Joyner v Weeks [1891] 2 QB 31 (CA).........................................................84–5, 166, 171, 190
Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499 (CA)..................................................................................102
Kingston v Preston (1773) 2 Doug 684; Lofft 197 ...................................................................7
Koch Marine Inc v d’Amica Societa di Navigazione ARL
(The Elena D’Amico) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 75 ...............................................94–5, 249, 286
Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd (The Heron II) [1969] 1 AC 350

(HL) (n 58).................................................................................... 230–1, 237, 239, 246, 256
Lagden v O’Connor [2004] 1 AC 1067 (HL) .......................................................................249
Lane v O’ Brien Homes Ltd [2004] EWHC 303 (QB)...........................................................61
Lavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd [1967] 1 QB 278 .............................................87, 90, 94
Lazenby v Wright [1976] 1 WLR 459 (CA) .................................................................... 277–8
Leeds Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd v Slack [1924] AC 851 (HL) ...........................157
Leofelis SA & Anor v Lonsdale Sports Ltd & Ors [2007] EWHC 451 (Ch) .......................295
Leofelis SA & Anor v Lonsdale Sports Ltd & Ors [2008]
EWCA Civ 640; [2008] ETMR 63 ....................................................................................295
Leofelis SA & Anor v Lonsdale Sports Ltd & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 68 ............................295
Leofelis SA & Anor v Lonsdale Sports Ltd & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 457 ..........................295
Leofelis SA & Anor v Lonsdale Sports Ltd & Ors [2012]
EWHC 485 (Ch D), substantively upheld on appeal
(The Trademark Licensing Co Ltd & Anor v
Leofelis SA & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 985)...................................294, 296–7, 299–302, 305
Lep Air v Rolloswin [1973] AC 331 (HL) ............................................................................220
LG Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales [1974]
AC 235 (HL) ......................................................................................................................181
Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd
(1992) 57 Build LR 57 (CA) ...............................................................................................89
Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd
[1994] 1 AC 85 (HL) ...................................................................................55–9, 194–5, 273
Linklaters Business Services v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd,
Sir Robert McAlpine (Holdings) Ltd [2010] EWHC 2931 (TCC) ............................ 266–8
Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25 (HL)..............................................116
Lumley v Gye [1853] EWHC QB J73 ...................................................................................146
McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1; [1972] UKHL 7 ....................................223
Malhotra v Choudhury [1980] Ch 52 (CA) ........................................................................158
Malik v BCCI [1998] AC 20 (HL) ..................................................................................29, 108
Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA v Bergbau-Handel

GmbH (The Mihalis Angelos) [1971] QB 164..............................................295, 301, 303–4
Mayson v Clouet [1924] AC 980 (HL) .................................................................................135
Merrett v Capitol Indemnity Group Corp [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 169 ...................................89
Mertens v Home Freeholds [1921] 2 KB 526 (CA) .............................................................262
Miles v Wakefield MDC [1987] AC 539 (HL) .......................................................82, 165, 301
Milner v Carnival Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 389; [2010] PIQR Q3 ...............................34–5, 108
Ministry of Sound (Ireland) Ltd v World Online Ltd
[2003] EWHC 2178 (Ch) .................................................................................................153
Mirant Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd v Ove Arup &
Partners International Ltd [2007] EWHC 918 (TCC) ......................................................59
Monarch Steamship Co Ltd v Karlshamns Oljefebriker A/B
[1949] AC 196 (HL) ..................................................................................................224, 240