![Case Nos: CA-2024-002136 - [2025] EWCA Civ 921](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
Overall conclusion
Overall conclusion
I would dismiss FCCB’s appeal in so far as it relates to the deduction of costs. The Judge did not, in my view, misconstrue “directly incurred”. On top of that, the requirements of proviso (a) were not met.
- Heading
- Lord Justice Newey
- Some of the contractual terms
- W TPI = TPW R x 0.75
- GTPW TPI = the Guaranteed Third Party Waste Third Party Income. …”
- Contracts with third parties The Luton contract
- The Hertfordshire contracts
- The North London Waste Authority contracts
- O’Farrell J’s judgment
- The present proceedings
- The appeals
- Deductible costs “directly incurred”
- The Judgment
- FCCB’s case
- Discussion
- Proviso (a)
- The Judgment
- The parties’ positions
- Discussion
- Burden of proof
- Overall conclusion
- The Luton unitary charge
- The Judgment
- FCCB’s case
- Discussion
- Haulage costs
- Proviso (c)
- The Judge’s reasoning
- The parties’ positions
- Conclusions
- Conclusions