C. & P. Haulage v Middleton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE ACKNER,LORD JUSTICE FOX |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] EWCA Civ J0627-1 |
| Docket Number | 83/0283 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 27 June 1983 |
[1983] EWCA Civ J0627-1
Lord Justice Ackner
and
Lord Justice Fox
83/0283
Plaint No. 8200757
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE WATFORD COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE STOCKDALE)
Royal Courts of Justice.
MR. D. LAMMING (instructed by Messrs. Woolley & Weston) appeared on behalf of the (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
MR. A.J. KEOGH (instructed by Messrs. Hanbury Gery Brooks & Weston) appeared on behalf of the (Defendant) Appellant.
This appeal, which has been admirably argued on both sides, arises out of these facts. Mr. Middleton is an automobile engineer and repairer. He had been up to the end of 1948 working from a garage, part of his own home. The local authority, however? objected to this use being made of domestic property, and they gave him the appropriate notice to desist. He thereupon urgently looked round for other accommodation.
C. & P. Haulage, the respondents in this case, a firm which carried on the business of plant hire, well know to Mr. Middleton, he having done work for them and they having hired machinery to him. Knowing one of the partners, he discussed the terms upon which might use a yard they had, which had a covered workshop, and which was only used for storage. Eventually they entered, on or about the 15th December, into an agreement. This is essentially contained in a document which emanated from the respondents, the material terms of which read as follows:
"Before offering you the use of our yard at Winton Approach we would like you to agree to the following:
1) The use of the yard to be reviewed every six months.
2) We require spare keys to any locks which you may wish to fix on outer doors.
3) We require to know whom besides yourself will be working in the yard.
4) We would not accept any liability for any injury or accident while on our premises.
5) Any fixtures you put in are left.
6) The rates and electricity to be paid by you via C & P. The bills will be seen by you."
The agreement itself does not in fact refer to what payment should be made, but the learned county court judge accepted that there would in due course be an agreement as to the payment. The learned judge concluded—and this is not challenged; in fact it was accepted before him—that the agreement amounted in law to a licence. It was not a lease. The payment had still to be discussed.
Mr. Middleton moved in and began to use the premises for commercial purposes but not until towards the end of 1978. He had to carry out quite a considerable amount of work to make the premises suitable for his purpose. A wall had to be built enclosing the premises, locks had to be fitted, and electricity had to be laid on.
On the 16th June he was still in occupation. The learned judge concluded—and again this is not challenged—that the licence was for six months with renewal every six months. It could thus be terminated every six months, and he took the view—and this has not been challenged—that a reasonable notice prior to its termination of one month at least would have been necessary.
Accordingly, when the 16th June went by, no notice having been given, a second period of six months then started, with the result that Mr. Middleton was at least sure of the licence continuing until the 15th December, 1979.
Unfortunately there was some misunderstanding or trouble on the 5th October, by which time the premises were completed and were being used for the garage work, when the senior partner of the firm had some difficulty in getting oil from a drum which had been moved without his permission. He became very angry, and told Mr. Middleton to get out. The locks were changed. Mr. Middleton did not take the sensible course of consulting solicitors, who undoubtedly would have advised him to apply for an injunction and appropriate further relief. He accepted the position. He managed to climb in and, with help, moved his essential equipment out of the premises. He went back to his own garage. He told the council about his predicament, and they were very sympathetic. He was allowed to stay where he was—which meant of course he did not pay any rent because it was his property—and he was allowed to remain using the premises, despite the council's previous objection, for a period of a year. The council clearly behaved both generously and reasonably.
The proceedings in this case was in fact begun by C. & P. Haulage. They brought proceedings on the basis of cheques which had been provided by Mr. Middleton and which had not been paid. Mr. Middleton had stopped payment because of his grievance with regard to being summarily ejected from the premises after paying a considerable amount on effecting the improvements to which I have made mention. That of course was no answer to the claim on the cheques, and judgment was duly signed.
A defence and counterclaim had been put in which contained Mr. Middleton's claim for the reimbursement of his expenditure on the premises, and it is in relation to that counterclaim that this appeal arises from the decision of His Honour Judge Eric Stockdale given on the 13th September, 1982 at the Watford County Court. In those proceedings, of course, Mr. Middleton was in effect the plaintiff suing C. & P. Haulage, the firm, for damages for breach of contract, the contract being the licence agreement to which I have referred. His claim amounted to £1,767.51, which covered labour and material used in building the wall, to which I have referred, laying on the electricity and moving or transferring a telephone.
There is no dispute, and Mr. Keogh frankly accepted that at the outset of this appeal, that under the agreement Mr. Middleton could not take out of the premises at the termination of the agreement any fixtures. There was the specific provision in paragraph 5 that they were to be left. He secondly accepted that the agreement could have been lawfully terminated ten weeks later, on the 15th December, 1979, than the date upon which it was unlawfully and summarily determined on the 5th October.
The learned judge concluded that since in those ten weeks Mr. Middleton had been able to return to his own garage and pay no rent, he had suffered no damage, and he accordingly gave judgment against Mr. Middleton. The learned judge accepted that in putting new locks on the premises on the 5th October and making it impossible for Mr. Middleton to return and use the yard and premises that was a breach of contract by C. & P. Haulage.
At the outset of this appeal we raised that point that, having established a breach of contract, Mr. Middleton was entitled to judgment. If he could prove no damages beyond nominal damages, then the judgment would have to be limited to nominal damages. Accordingly, when this matter was further considered, the notice of appeal was amended to take this point, and Mr. Lamming very sensibly accepted that there was no answer to the proposition that the learned judge should in fact have entered judgment for Mr. Middleton, although, on the basis of the learned judge's decision, only for nominal damages of £10.
The appeal here has not been concerned with that criticism of the learned judge. The submissions made by Mr. Keogh are essentially the same submissions which he made before the learned county court judge. They are to the effect that Mr. Middleton, having expended this sum of money, was entitled to recover that sum of money back by way of damages for breach of contract.
The learned judge approached the case essentially on this basis, that the accepted principle in relation to the assessment of damages for breach of contract was to put the plaintiff in the same position, as far as one could, as he would have been in if the contract had been performed; and in order to evaluate whether if the contract had been performed what was the nature, if any, of the damage that he should be entitled to claim, one had to look at the consequences of the breach of contract.
The consequences of this breach of contract were that so far from Mr. Middleton suffering any damage as a result of being excluded from the premises ten weeks earlier than would lawfully have been the case, thanks to the tolerance of the planning authorities he had in effect been saved the payment, which was likely to be between £60 and £100 a week, which he would have had to have paid for the use of C. & P. Haulage's premises. He accordingly came to the conclusion that if he was to award the damages claimed, he would be putting Mr. Middleton in a better position than would have been the case if the contract had been lawfully determined.
The case which was at the forefront of Mr. Keogh's submissions before the learned judge and before us as well is that of Anglia Television Ltd....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Heller Factoring Sdn Bhd (Previously known as Matang Factoring Sdn Bhd) v Metalco Industries (M) Sdn Bhd
- Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat v Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd, SC
- Xcess Networks (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Huawei Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
- Subramaniam a/l Paramasivam v Malaysian Airline System
-
Assessment of Damages Following a Breach of Contract - The 'Mamola Challenger'
...that the Owners were entitled to damages for the wasted expenditure the tribunal followed the authority of C&P Haulage v Middleton [1983] 1 WLR 1461] and held that "[The expenses] were simply wasted as a result of the termination of the contract by the other party. The fact that the Ves......
-
Compensation for Harm to Economic Interests
...or that “profits” and “losses” cannot both 118 Ibid at para 11. 119 See CCC Films , above note 109; C & P Haulage v Middleton , [1983] 3 All ER 94 (CA). 120 (1984), 58 BCLR 33 (CA) [ Sunshine ]. 121 Ibid at 43. REMEDIES: THE LAW OF DAMAGES 58 be claimed. For example, in Anglia Television Lo......
-
Damages
...“Damages for Pre-Contract Expenditure” (1985) 11 NZUL Rev 346. 75 Bowlay Logging , above note 72. See also C & P Haulage v Middleton , [1983] 1 WLR 1461 (CA). See also , Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co , [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm) (charterparty at less than market rate — char......
-
Table of cases
...Marketing Ltd, [2005] OTC 322, [2005] OJ No 1665 (SCJ) ......................................... 366, 398 C & P Haulage v Middleton, [1983] 3 All ER 94, [1983] 1 WLR 1461, 127 Sol Jo 730 (CA) ...................................................... 57 C(H) v Loo (2003), 403 AR 212, 12 Alta LR......
-
Compensation for Harm to Economic Interests
...or that “profits” and “losses” cannot both 90 Ibid. at para. 11. 91 See CCC Films, above note 81; C. & P. Haulage v. Middleton, [1983] 3 All E.R. 94 (C.A.). 92 (1984), 58 B.C.L.R. 33 (C.A.) [ Sunshine ]. 93 Ibid . at 43. Compensation for Harm to Economic Interests 51 be claimed. For example......