Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd
| Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd | |
|---|---|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1980] 1 WLR 277 |
| Case opinions | |
| Lord Wilberforce | |
| Keywords | |
| Privity | |
Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 277 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of Privity
Contents
Facts
Wimpey Construction UK Ltd contracted to buy land from Woodar Investment Development Ltd for £850,000. On completion of the purchase, Wimpey was meant to pay a further £150,000 to a third party, Transworld Trade Ltd.[1] Wimpey terminated the contract alleging they were allowed where statutory authority had started a compulsory purchase. Woodar said this was a repudiatory breach and claimed the full £1m. The claimants argued that Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd should be followed so they could claim for a benefit to be given to a third party.
Judgment
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal, Buckley, Lawton and Goff LJJ held reluctantly that they were bound by Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd into holding that the £150,000 could be recovered.
House of Lords
The House of Lords held by a majority (Lord Salmon and Lord Russell dissenting) that there had in fact been no repudiatory breach. But as obiter dicta they discussed where the Court of Appeal was right that if Woodar did have a good claim for breach of contract, they could claim damages on behalf of Transworld Trade Ltd. Lord Wilberforce said that Jackson could be supported on its special facts, as a type of contract including family holidays, ordering meals in restaurants and hiring a taxi for a group. But here the ‘factual situation is quite different.’
See also
Notes
- ↑ See now CRTPA 1999 s 1(1)(b)
References
- Darlington BC v Wiltshier Northern Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 68
