Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd Essay

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd - search ExampleThe purchase and installation were conducted and within a few days of ordinary usage and resultant airing, the trematode worm overheated and ignited some nearby towels starting a fire. Expert evidence (see the annexed declare by Robert Brown) that the fluke failed to comply with British Standard specifications, and that the defendant was negligent in fitting the flue in the claimants cupboard thereby exposing the flue to the accumulation of dangerous temperatures. The defendants basically admit these failures solo remarking that they had discharged their responsibility to the plaintiff by warning of the danger of using the flue in virtually proximity to articles of clothing.By virtue of Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Code 1998 the claimants industry for epitome judgment is required to show that the defendants answer to the claim contains a) no legitimate prospect of success and b) there is no other substantial or co mpelling reason why the case should be disposed of in a trial.1 By virtue of Practice Direction 24, summary judgment can be obtained in one of the following three situations-It is important to note that the coquet will make its determination based on the evidence which can reasonably be expect to be available at trial or the lack of it.3 Since the defendant purports to be relying only on the strength of the contract itself in evidence, it will have no evidence capable of contradicting the claimants charge that the flue and its subsequent was negligent. The basis of this claim is founded on the principles enshrined in the tort of negligence rather than any contractual terms and is tantamount to no defense at all.