header-logo header-logo

05 September 2014
Issue: 7620 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Contract—Construction

St Christopher School (Letchworth) Ltd v Schymanski and another [2014] EWHC 2573 (QB), [2014] All ER (D) 303 (Jul)

The parents’ children attended the claimant school which was a fee paying school. When the parents failed to pay certain fees, the school brought an action for payment of a term’s fees. The parents brought a defence and counterclaim alleging that the school was not entitled to recover the unpaid fees because it had acted in fundamental breach of contract, entitling the parents to rescind and/or repudiate the contract. The parents also made allegations of racial discrimination and bullying. The Queen’s Bench Division held that on he facts and evidence, the school had not acted in breach of any of its three contracts. The defence and counterclaim had therefore had to fail.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys further bolsters Private Equity expertise with the appointment of James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons strengthens Rural Affairs team with senior appointment

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll