Legal Action Initiated

1. At all material times the Claimant, a company incorporated in England and Wales, was a printing press company. At all material times the Defendant, a company incorporated in England and Wales, was specialised in the transportation of heavy industrial equipment.

2. On 8 July 2020, the Claimant and the Defendant agreed that the Defendant would transport Claimant’s printing press to Claimant’s new office address at “The Letterpress Factory”, Westwood Road Industrial Estate, London, W1 6YJ.

3. The parties agreed that the Claimant would pack the printing press weighing over 400 kilos, with wooden container similar to the type used for shipping heavy industrial machinery and would secure it by bolts. The Defendant agreed to transport the printing press to the agreed location at an agreed fee of £13,980 to be paid to the Defendant before transit.

4. Based on the agreement, Alan Zahab of the Claimant bought the container and get the printing press successfully packed. Mr. Zahab of the Claimant paid Mr. Connor of the Defendant on 22 September 2020 the agreed fee of £13,980 through a cheque.

5. On 3 September 2020, a fork lift truck lifted the container onto the back of a lorry. The lorry arrived at the London factory around 6:30 pm. Since the driveway to the factory was too narrow for the lorry, another fork lift truck had to take the container up the driveway to the factory.

6. Zach Oliver, the fork lift truck driver, accelerated the fork lift truck, which caused the container to wobble. The truck took a very quick turn into the bend. This caused the container toppled over about half way round the bend and fell on its side. Mr. Oliver informed Mr. Zahab of the Claimant, who was following the truck, that he took the bend “too fast”.

7. The printing press was badly damaged. The Claimant took the printing press to the factory workshop for close inspection. Mr. Zahab’s wife, on the next day that 24 September 2020, recorded and took digital photographs with her mobile phone of printing press being removed to record the condition of the printing press.

8. On 28 September 2020, when the Claimant telephoned Mr. Connor of the Defendant, he alleged that the accident was the fault of the Claimant. He denied that the fork lift truck was driving fast and that the container fell as it was badly packed.

9. An expert, as allowed by the Defendant, inspected the fork lift truck, the container and the printing press and the mobile phone recording and the digital photographs. The expert found that printing press was adequately packed by the Claimant. The expert found that the bolts became unsecure when the accident happened.

10. The container, according to the report, did not collapsed. There driveway was relatively flat with no significant camber and the road surface did not show any defect. The report concluded that the container fell due to the speed at which the truck was being driven at the bend. This is evidence by the skid marks at the scene of the incident. A copy of the report is attached to these Particulars of Claim.

11. Mr Connor on a telephone call with the Claimant on 1 December 2020 refused to accept the report. The Defendant, accordingly, breached the term of the transportation agreement.

Particulars of Breach

12. The act of the Claimant’s fork lift truck driver in driving the truck quickly at the bend failed to apply reasonable care and skill. As a result, the Defendant breached Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which required performance of the service of transportation with reasonable care and skill.

13. According to Section 8, the agreement to transport the printing press constitutes a contracts for transfer of goods. According to Section 28(2), such contract includes a terms that the Defendant must deliver the printing press to the Claimant. However, the Defendant has failed to deliver the printing press at the factory because of the accident.

14. Section 29(2) retains the risk of printing press with the Defendant until it came into the physical possession of the Claimant. In this case, the accident occurred before it reached the factory of the Claimant and before coming into the possession of the Claimant. As such, the Claimant is liable for the damage caused to the printing press.

15. As a result of the Defendant’s breach of the agreement, the Claimant suffered damage to the printing press, which is beyond economic repair and which needs to be replaced. By reason of the Defendant’s breach, the Claimant has suffered loss and damage, including substantial amount of work.

Particulars of Loss and Damage

16. Loss in value of the Company

17. The Claimant claims interest pursuant to Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 on all sums found due to it at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

Damages under paragraph 16 above.

Interest under paragraph 17 above.

Dated: 12th March 2021

ERROL MURPHAY

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly authorised to sign this statement of truth on behalf of the Claimant.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Judicial Supervision in Sports.

Signed:

Alan Zahab, Managing Director of the Claimant

The Claimant’s solicitors are Clark & Co, of 13 Edinburgh Street, London, N1 5MN (ref: ile ref 00855.0014/T065/FKP) where they will accept service of proceedings on behalf of the Claimant.

To the Defendant and the Court Manager