Cases - Biggin & Co Ltd v Permanite Ltd
Record details
- Name
- Biggin & Co Ltd v Permanite Ltd
- Date
- [1951]
- Citation
- 2 KB 314
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction claim - loss and expense claim - damages - arbitration - arbitration settlement reasonableness of settlement - recoverability
- Summary
-
The claimants were purchasers of goods from the defendants for re-sale to the Dutch government. The goods were defective, and arbitration proceedings brought by the Dutch government were settled by the claimants. The claimants sought to recover the sums paid under the settlement agreement from the defendants. The trial judge held that the settlement was irrelevant. The Court of Appeal disagreed:
'I think that the learned judge ... was wrong in regarding the settlement as wholly irrelevant. I think, though it is not conclusive, the fact that it is admittedly an upper limit would lead one to the conclusion that, if reasonable, it should be taken as the measure. The result of the learned judge's conclusion is that the plaintiff must prove his damages strictly and must show that they equal or exceed £43,000. If that involves, as it would here, a very complicated and expensive enquiry, still that has to be done. The law, in my opinion, encourages reasonable settlements, particularly where, as here, strict proof would be a very expensive matter. The question in my opinion is: What evidence is necessary to establish reasonableness? I think it relevant to prove that the settlement was made under legal advice ... The plaintiff must, I think, lead evidence ... as to what would probably be proved if ... the arbitration had proceeded, so that the court can come to a conclusion whether the sum paid was reasonable. The defendant may ... seek to show that it was not reasonable ... He might in some cases show that some vital matter had been overlooked' (per Somervell LJ).
The plaintiffs must establish a prima facie case that the settlement was a reasonable one' (per Singleton LJ).