header-logo header-logo

05 July 2007 / Betul Milliner
Issue: 7280 / Categories: Features , Damages
printer mail-detail

History revisited

The compensatory principle is paramount in assessing damages, says Betul Milliner

When an event occurs after acceptance of a repudiatory breach which diminishes the value of the loss suffered, should the court take this into account in an assessment of damages? This was the question that the House of Lords considered in Golden Strait Corpn v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory) [2007] UKHL 12, [2007] 3 All ER 1, when it was asked to decide whether damages should be quantified at the date of acceptance of a repudiatory breach or at the date on which damages are being assessed. By a majority of three to two, the law lords held that damages should be quantified at the date on which they are assessed and that the court should not ignore events that have occurred after the date of repudiation.

The appellant was the owner of a vessel which was chartered on 10 July 1998 for a time period charterparty of seven years. Under the terms of the charterparty, the earliest date on which it

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll