British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Company of London Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 1912 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1912] UKHL J0719-2 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 19 July 1912 |
[1912] UKHL J0719-2
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Friday the 21st, Tuesday the 25th, Thursday the 27th, and Friday the 28th, days of June last, as on Monday the 1st day of this instant July, upon the Petition and Appeal of the British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, Limited, of Westinghouse Building, Norfolk Street, Strand, in the City of Westminster, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 14th of December 1911, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of the Underground Electric Railways Company of London, Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 4th day of December 1911, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed, and that the Award be, and the same is hereby remitted to the Arbitrator, with a declaration that the contention of the Appellants on the first question, so far, but only so far, as they contended that the several facts relied upon by them were relevant matter to be considered by the Arbitrator in assessing the damages, was right, and that the contention of the Respondents on the second question was wrong: And it is further Ordered, That the Respondents do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hussey v Eels
..."However the matter does not end there due to a vitally important mitigation point. I am persuaded by Mr. Higginson that this is a classic Westinghouse case. Mr. Higginson also referred me to the case of Bellingham v. Dhillon. Damages accrue on the date of completion: the tortious measure a......
-
Bevad Ltd v Oman Ltd
...This principle was eminently expressed by Vicount Haldene, LC, in the leading case of British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co, Ltd. v. Underground Electric Railways Co. of London, Ltd. [1912] A.C. 673 at 689, when he said: "The fundamental basis is thus compensation for pecuniar......
- Malaysian Rubber Development Corporation Bhd v Glove Seal Sdn Bhd
-
Madoff Securities International Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Stephen Raven and Others
...a claimant cannot recover for avoided loss save where the benefit which diminishes or avoids the loss is collateral: British Westinghouse Co v Underground Railway [1912] AC 673; McGregor on Damages 18 th Edn 7–097 to 7–167. The benefit will not be treated as collateral if it is received as......
-
Litigation & Dispute Resolution Update
...analysed a number of cases including British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing v Underground Electric Railways Co (London) Limited [1912] AC 673, Blue Circle Industries plc v Ministry of Defence [1999] Ch 289, Hussey v Eels [1990] 2 QB 227, Financial Services Ltd v Taber [2002] 3 All ......
-
COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (OCTOBER 28 – NOVEMBER 1 2019)
...Cockburn v. Trusts and Guarantee Co. (1917), 55 S.C.R. 264, British Westinghouse Electric Co. v. Underground Electric Railways Co., [1912] A.C. 673 (H.L.) B. v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 858 Keywords: : Insurance Law, Duty to Defend, Pleadings Rule Approach, Monen......
-
The benefit of hindsight: the Supreme Court resets the course of the New Flamenco, and the law on mitigation of damages
...[2015] EWCA Civ 1299, [23]. 9 See British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673 at 689. See also the judgment of Goff J in The Elena D'Amico [1980] 1 Lloyds Rep 75 at Charles BalmainKieran Anderson...
-
IFI Update London, August/Octber 2008 - Part 1
...The general duty to mitigate in claims for damages was laid down by Viscount Haldane in British Westinghouse Co. v. Underground Railway [1912] AC 673, at 689. It is a question of law as whether there is a duty to mitigate in any particular case. It is a matter of fact as to whether the clai......
-
Defects
...(TCC) at [132], per Akenhead J. 372 British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways of London Ltd [1912] AC 673; Eastern Construction Co Pty Ltd v Southern Portland Cement Ltd [1960] NSWR 505 at 506, per Owen J; Board of Governors of the Hospitals for Si......
-
Damages
...occur, see Hunt , above note 179. 199 British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Ry Co of London Ltd , [1912] AC 673 at 689 (HL), Viscount Haldane LC [ British Westinghouse ]. See also Dunkirk Colliery Co v Lever Co (1878), 9 Ch Div 20 (CA). 200 See Jewelo......
-
Mitigation, Avoided Loss, and Time of Assessment
...recover “avoidable losses.” 2 1 British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Rlys Co of London Ltd , [1912] AC 673 at 689 (HL) [ British Westinghouse ], quoted with approval in Asamera Oil Corp v Sea Oil & General Corp (1978), [1979] 1 SCR 633 at 661 [ Asamera......
-
Table of cases
...388 REMEDIES: THE LAW OF DAMAGES 550 British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Rlys Co of London Ltd, [1912] AC 673, 81 LJKB 1132, [1911–13] All ER Rep 63 (HL) ....................... 428, 457 Brito (Guardian ad litem of) v Woolley, [2001] BCJ No 1692, 2001......