Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> London Buses Services Ltd v Tramtrack Croydon Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1832 (19 December 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1832.html
Cite as: [2006] EWCA Civ 1832
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE TOMLINSON)
Strand London, WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
LORD JUSTICE HALLETT
____________________
| LONDON BUSES SERVICES LTD | CLAIMANT/APPELLANT | |
| - v - | ||
| TRAMTRACK CROYDON LTD | DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR R WILMOT QC & MR S WILKEN (instructed by Ashurst) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE: For the reasons given in the judgment that I now hand down, this appeal will be dismissed save in one respect, and I will read the order of the court which is that: 1) the appeal is dismissed save as set out in paragraph 2 below; 2) the following passages of the judge's judgment be set aside: those parts of the judge's judgment which decide that measures intended to bring about an increase in passenger carrying capacity would involve a change to or a change outside the service parameters set out in section 9 of part 4 of the specification, namely i) paragraph 34 last sentence and ii) the clarification of this issue in the judge's supplementary judgment given on 17 March 2006; 3) permission for appeal to the House of Lords is refused; and 4) the appellants to pay three-quarters of the respondent's costs of the appeal including, for the avoidance of doubt, those costs incurred in responding to the appellant's notice of appeal and first skeleton argument
- The reason for our order for costs is that we regard the appellant's success as set out in paragraph 2 of this order as a very limited success, the point raised being at this stage hypothetical and not appropriate for final decision.
- That is the order of the court which we have made after consideration of the submissions presented to us.
Order: Appeal dismissed.