header-logo header-logo

15 February 2007 / Richard Lawson
Issue: 7260 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Damage limitation

Richard Lawson considers the limits of recovery for damages for breach of contract

In Wiseman v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd [2006] EWHC 1566 (QB), [2006] All ER (D) 344 (Jun) Dr Raphael Wiseman sought compensation for extra hotel accommodation and related expenses after being wrongly turned away from his flight from Nigeria to London. The High Court accepted that the action was subject to the contemplation formula laid down in Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 23 LJ Ex 179, [1843-60] All ER Rep 461. The relevant costs were allowed in Wiseman, precedent being provided by Hamlin v Great Northern Rly Co (1856) 1 H & N 408, 26 LJ Ex 20 and Woodger v Great Western Rly Co (1867) LR 2 CP 318, 36 LJCP 177.

Alternative transport

It is not entirely clear that a claim for hiring alternative transport would be unsupported in principle. In Le Blanche v London and North Western Rly Co (1876) 1 CPD 286, 40 JP 580 a passenger found that his connection had left. He hired a special train which arrived

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

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