Home > Barristers > Ivor Collett > Ivor Collett Case List

Ivor Collett Case List

<< View barrister profile

Warfield Park Homes Ltd v Warfield Park Residents' Association

LTL 27/3/2007; [2006] EWCA Civ 283


The problems of water leakages could be considered to be a shared problem between the owners and the occupiers of a mobile home park and it was reasonable to expect them to share the cost of such leakages.

Kew v Bettamix Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1535


Times, December 4, 2006


Case considered the issues of “constructive knowledge” under the Limitation Act 1980; the grounds for depriving a party of part of his costs; and “unreasonable conduct” under CPR 44.3

Shine v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

LTL 9/6/2006; [2006] EWCA Civ 852


The Highways Act 1980 s.66 did not impose any liability on a highway authority for personal injuries caused by defective barriers, including bollards, on a public highway. Liability for personal injuries caused by such defective barriers arose in negligence.

Hodson Developments Ltd v GTA Civils Ltd Whitehouse Practice

[2006] EWHC 1913


Construction/professional negligence claim

Foreman v O'Driscoll & Partners

[2000] Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 720


Solicitors' negligence / limitation and deliberate concealment

Sunley v Gowland White (Surveyors & Estate Agents Ltd)

LTL 10/2/2003; [2004] PNLR 15 CA


The judge should have allowed a soil survey report to have been admitted as evidence in support of a claim of professional negligence where it was never pleaded that the evidence was inadmissible and each party intended to make submissions and advance argument on the contents of the report.

Savory v Morrison (t/a Park Home Estates)

LTL 23/7/2001; [2002] 1 P. & C.R. 11 CA


The terms of a licence agreement entitled a dog owner to bring his dog into a mobile home park only in special circumstances where that dog was depended upon in order to maintain its owner's quality of life and was not merely attached to a family as a pet.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Snowcrest Ltd

LTL 4/11/99 (unreported elsewhere)


Where a party had been nonsuited and had then issued fresh proceedings, it owed a duty to the court to proceed swiftly with the prosecution of the fresh action. In the circumstances of this case the plaintiff's failure to comply with the automatic directions timetable seen in light of the earlier indulgence of nonsuit constituted an abuse of process.