British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Company of London Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHouse of Lords
Judgment Date19 Jul 1912
Judgment citation (vLex)[1912] UKHL J0719-2

[1912] UKHL J0719-2

House of Lords

British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, Limited
and
Underground Electric Railway Company of London, Limited.
1

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:

2

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
447 cases
  • Hussey v Eels
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 November 1989
    ...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 applies. I......
  • Bevad Ltd v Oman Ltd
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal
    • 18 July 2008
    ...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 pec......
  • Malaysian Rubber Development Corporation Bhd v Glove Seal Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • Supreme Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Liverpool (The) (No. 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 July 1960
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
  • From Philadelphia To The Moon!
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 30 July 2015
    ...that of the House of Lords in British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673. More than 100 years after it was decided, the case continues to generate academic articles and new decisions. British Westinghouse also prov......
  • IFI Update London, August/Octber 2008 - Part 1
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 9 October 2008
    ...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......
  • The 'NEW FLAMENCO'
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 31 December 2015
    ...of the House of Lords in British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] A.C. 673. The principle which emerges, and which should be sufficient to guide the fact-finder in any particular case, he said, is that, if a claimant adop......
  • The 'NEW FLAMENCO' – Supreme Court Decision
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 13 July 2017
    ...of the House of Lords in British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] A.C. 673, the CA held that if a claimant adopts by way of mitigation a measure which arises out of the consequences of the breach and is in the ordinary co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Clark v. Macourt: defective sperm and performance substitutes in the High Court of Australia.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 38 Nbr. 2, December - December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...Pty Ltd v Clark [2011] NSWSC 1276 (25 October 2011) [79]. (27) Clark v Macourt (2013) 304 ALR 220, 249 [142]. In British Westinghouse [1912] AC 673, the buyer claimed the cost of buying substitute goods several years after the original delivery of the machines. On this basis, Keane J in Cla......
  • Claims for the value of the lost contractual performance
    • Australia
    • University of Western Australia Law Review Nbr. 45-1, June 2019
    • 1 June 2019
    ...Haldane’s observation in British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd above [1912] AC 673 (HL), 689 that the ‘fundamental basis [for awarding damages for breach of contract] is... compensation for pecuniary loss naturally flowing ......
  • Good faith and Post-Repudiation Conduct
    • Australia
    • University of Western Australia Law Review Nbr. 40-1, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...(1986) 161 CLR 653, 673 (Brennan J). 18See British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673. 19See Simonius Vischer & Co v Holt & Thompson (1979) 2 NSWLR 322. 20British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underg......
  • After Tabcorp, for whom does the Bellgrove toll? Cementing the expectation measure as the 'ruling principle' for calculation of contract damages.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 33 Nbr. 3, December 2009
    • 1 December 2009
    ...Newsletter 46. (10) See, eg, British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways (;o of London Ltd [1912] AC 673, 689 (Viscount Haldane LC); Beale, above n 9, vol 2, 766; Adrian Chandler, 'Defective Performance of Building Contracts: Expectations in a St......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT