“…at assumption” (see Chitty on Contracts 33rd edition at [4-108], which reflected the summary by Lord Steyn in Republic of India v. India Steamship Co Ltd (No 2)[1998] AC 878 (“Republic of India”) at page 913E-G:…”
“… he was entitled to (see, for example Wright v London General Omnibus Co[1877] 2 QBD 271 and Republic of India v Indian Steamship Company Ltd (The Indian Grace)[1998] AC 878). As Mummery LJ held in Fraser v HMLAD[2006] EWCA Civ 738 at [29], a single cause of action cannot be split into two causes of action.”…”
“…55-60, in particular by reference to the speech of Lord Steyn in Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (The Indian Endurance and the Indian Grace) (No. 2) [1998] AC 878, at 913-914. As Lord Steyn said, at page 913:…”
“…convention, it was common ground both before the Judge and before this Court that the applicable principle is that stated by Lord Steyn in The Indian Endurance [1998] AC 878 at 913:…”