Sue Harris trial and reported cases
Sue Harris has been involved in a number of high profile/high value reported cases including:
- Rendlesham Estates Plc & Others –v- Barr Limited. Successfully acting for over 90 Claimants in a multi-party action against a building contractor under the Defective Premises Act 1972. In addition, brining professional negligence claims against the respective conveyancing solicitors
- R v Yorkshire Sheeting and Insulation Limited (fine for health and safety at work related offences reduced on appeal)
- Fanmail and Paul Burtenshaw v MCashback and others (2008) EWHC 313 (CH) and (2009) EWCA Civ 1368 (beneficial ownership of shares and directors’ breaches of fiduciary duties)
- Geoffrey Day v Austen Tasker, Multiflight Limited and Anthony Kennett (unreported December 2009) (representing an engineer in a case involving unexplained helicopter engine failure)
- Multiplex Constructions UK Limited v Cleveland Bridge (UK) Limited (2006) EWHC 1341 (TCC) (repudiatory breach issues arising from the construction of bowl and iconic arch at Wembley National Stadium)
- Trac Time Controls Limited v Moss Plastic Parts Limited and Others (2005) All ER (D) 06 Jan (product liability)
- Castlebay Limited v Asquith Properties Limited (2005) EWCA Civ 1734 (after CA judgment negotiation of a substantial settlement with the solicitors who drafted the planning option agreement)
- Cleveland Bridge UK Limited v Yarm Road Limited v Hewden Tower Cranes Limited (2002) EWHC 2265 (TCC) and (2003) EWCA Civ 1127(preliminary issue relating to the interpretation of the Model Conditions of the Construction Plant-hire Association)
- Tate & Lyle v YSIS and Others(multi party Arbitration relating to a defective warehouse roof)
- Northern Foods Plc v Focal Foods Limited (2001) EWCA Civ 1262 (preliminary issue terms of the contract for the supply of onions successful in the CA).
- Kenburgh Investments Ltd v David Yablon Minton Ellis (solicitors’ negligence) and Court of Appeal judgment (preliminary issue re a previous settlement with directors and whether this prevented a liquidator from pursuing proceedings relating out of the same contractual transaction against the company’s solicitors).