Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14
I thought the judgment was pretty clear, to quote:
"Damages resulting from HFC’s breach of its duty of care are confined to injury to Mr Durkin’s credit in the sum of £8,000."
They expressly stated they could not consider the elements of actual loss that had been alleged, this means the SC awarded £8,000 + interest for the mere act of 'Injury to credit'
Again, comments above are not meant to be derogatary, just how I see the thing (albeit simplistic) and I guess the only way we'll really find out is when someone puts it all into practice!
![Tinysmile Fatgrin T2](https://legalbeagles.info/forums/core/images/smilies/tinysmile_fatgrin_t2.png)
Originally posted by andy58
View Post
"Damages resulting from HFC’s breach of its duty of care are confined to injury to Mr Durkin’s credit in the sum of £8,000."
They expressly stated they could not consider the elements of actual loss that had been alleged, this means the SC awarded £8,000 + interest for the mere act of 'Injury to credit'
Again, comments above are not meant to be derogatary, just how I see the thing (albeit simplistic) and I guess the only way we'll really find out is when someone puts it all into practice!
![Tinysmile Fatgrin T2](https://legalbeagles.info/forums/core/images/smilies/tinysmile_fatgrin_t2.png)
Comment