The Court varied interlocutory referral orders to include a lost rent claim (proposed paragraph 4) on the basis that quantification of loss flowing from an established breach was a genuine quantum issue, not a liability issue, and had always been intended by the parties to be referred to a referee. The Court declined to include proposed paragraph 3 (costs of additional repair works) because the defendant had failed to establish at the liability hearing that the plaintiff had breached the lease by not performing those works, and could not now use the referral process to circumvent that failure. The overriding principle from Brimaud — that the court should do whatever the interests of justice require — justified the variation notwithstanding uncertainty about whether a material change of circumstances had occurred.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.