Approach to costs
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always aim to approach
legal work in a financially-disciplined way. We offer
competitive rates. Our charging approach is both transparent
and geared to the options open to our clients. Our
solicitors generally charge by reference to time spent but
we can often agree fixed fees for specific work or in some
cases risk-adjusted funding structures.
|
Send us a summary of your circumstances and objectives for a quick response. |
|
 |
Breach of collateral contract: quantum: assessment: expected profits
An award of £150,000 damages to the claimant for a breach of a collateral contract limiting the construction of houses by the defendant was appropriate and made on a proper basis.
Lane -v- O'Brien Homes Ltd (2204)
The defendant (B) appealed against the quantum of damages awarded to the claimant (L) for B's breach of an oral agreement to limit the number of houses on a building site. L sold a site to B for the construction of houses, subject to an oral collateral contract limiting construction to three houses only. B in fact built four houses. L claimed that the construction of the fourth house was in breach of the collateral contract. L was awarded £150,000 damages as the value of the loss of change of the bargaining position that the collateral contract gave L in any negotiations to release B from building only three houses. On this appeal, B submitted that the award of damages was not made on the appropriate basis and was therefore excessive.
Held: The award of damages had been made on the correct basis. L was entitled to a share of B's expected profit from building, or being able to build, a fourth house. There was no principle that stated that an individual in a position analogous to L's was only entitled to damages based upon a small percentage of any profits or expected profits. The sort of damages questions involved in cases such as the present were matters or judgment that were incapable of strict rational and logical exposition from beginning to end. Taking all matters into account, an award of £150,000 was appropriate. (Wrotham Park Estates Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd (1974) 1 WLR 798, Amec Developments Ltd v Jury's Hotel Management (UK) Ltd (2000) EGCS 138, HM Attorney-General (Claimant) v George Blake (Defendant) & Jonathan Cape Ltd (Third Party) (2000) 3 WLR 625 considered).
Appeal dismissed
"Lawtel": 9.2.04
|
|
Accessibility
We take instructions from UK & international clients. Our independent lawyers are available by email, telephone & fax. With central Bristol offices we are just 90 minutes from London by road or rail and 15 minutes from Bristol International Airport. We can travel to meetings if required.
|
Independent approach
We are an independent professional law firm here, not a legal factory turning out mass-produced products. In our experience, determined case-handling is more likely to produce effective results.
|
Turnaround time
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. look to input not only
careful legal work and precision but also the determination
to keep matters moving. They aim to work in clients' real
interests with energy and pragmatism.
|
Communication skills
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always try to open up the
legal process by giving advice and explaining options to
clients in a concise and straightforward way, identifying
clear courses of action whatever the technical or legal
complexities of the subject. |
|
