Is [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC) still good law?

This case has been given negative treatment in 1 later judgment(s) in this dataset (e.g. doubted or not followed), so its authority may be qualified — verify before relying on it.

How many times has [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC) been cited?

[2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC) is cited by 2 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC)

· cited by 2 · influence score 15/100

Is it still good law? ⚠️ This case has negative treatment (1 citation(s): e.g. doubted / not followed / overruled). Check carefully before relying on it.

How to cite

Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.

Treatment

Doubted · 1Followed · 1

Citation network

Cited by (2)

Followed — Mears Ltd v Costplan Services (South East) Ltd & Ors 2019-03-29
“…y right”. It is certainly the approach that has been followed in the subsequent cases: see, for example, Walter Lilley & Co. Limited v Mackay & Another (No. 2) [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC) at paragraph 372.…”
Doubted — North Midland Building Limited v Cyden Homes Limited 2018-07-30
“…concurrent delay is not entirely free from doubt. There is no Court of Appeal authority on the issue. In Walter Lilly and Co Limited v Giles Mackay and Another [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC); [2012] 28 Const. L.J. Issue 8, page 622, Akenhead J said that a contractor was entitled to an extension of time for concurrent delay. In reaching that conclus…”