Cookie consent

This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookies on atkinchambers.com

Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.

Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookie settings

Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.

Analytical cookies that measure website use

Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.

Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:

  • how you got to the site
  • the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
  • what you click on while you’re visiting the site

Strictly necessary cookies

These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.

Save changes

IPM Energy Trading Ltd v Carillion Energy Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 1399 (Comm)

13th Jun 2017

The Electricity and Gas (Community Energy Saving Programme) Order 2009 (“the CESP Order”) introduced the Community Energy Saving Programme (“CESP”) requiring generators of electricity to achieve specified energy-saving measures. The Claimant (a generator) engaged the Defendant to provide services for the purposes of the Claimant’s meeting its obligations under the CESP Order. The Claimant ultimately failed to meet its obligations under the CESP Order and the Defendant failed to meet its obligations to the Claimant under the Contract. The case concerned the amount of the Defendant’s liability to the Claimant.

The case depended partly on facts and partly on the effect of risk allocation provisions in the contract.

The Defendant, Carillion, succeeded in establishing that IPM had no claim for any recoverable loss and the Court dismissed the claim for damages against it.

(Instructed by Clyde & Co).

Related barristers: Robert Clay

To view the full judgment please click here.

13 June 2017





Register for updates

To keep in touch with news and updates from Atkin Chambers:

 

Register