![HT-2022-000092 - [2024] EWHC 3184 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
Have any of the alleged breaches of duty by Glanville caused Darcliffe a loss?
Have any of the alleged breaches of duty by Glanville caused Darcliffe a loss?
No.
Do the losses claimed by Darcliffe fall outside the scope of the duties found to be owed (under Issue 2 above) by Glanville to Darcliffe?
No. Darcliffe obtained the reports from Glanville (and GWL) to guard against this loss.
Was Darcliffe contributorily negligent in the manner set out at paragraph 58 of the Glanville Defence?
No.
Are any of Darcliffe’s claims against Glanville time-barred by reason of s.2 and s.5 Limitation Act 1980?
None of the claims in tort are time-barred.
Did GWL rely upon the report(s) produced by Glanville when producing their own report(s)? If so, was such reliance reasonable and/or reasonably foreseeable?
GWL did rely on the reports produced by Glanville as a matter of fact, but were not entitled to do so as a matter of law.
- Heading
- Adrian Williamson KC
- Glanville’s obligations (Issues 1 and 2)
- Glanville’s performance and alleged breach/negligence (Issue 4)
- Reliance/causation (Issues 3 and 5)
- Losses (Issues 6, 21 and 22)
- Miscellaneous (Issues 7, 8, and 18)
- Answers to issues
- What duties were owed by Glanville to Darcliffe when producing the report(s)?
- Have any of the alleged breaches of duty by Glanville caused Darcliffe a loss?
- What is the appropriate measure of loss in respect of each Defendant?
- Conclusions