Claim adjourned over Leyland gearbox
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A claim and counter-claim between Leyland Motors Ltd and Stoke-on-Trent hauliers, Joseph Kimberley and Sons Ltd, concerning a gearbox fitted to a Scammell vehicle, were adjourned at Salford County Court last week.
Leyland claimed that a sum was still owed on the vehicle and Kimberley counter-claimed on grounds of loss-of-use resulting from a defective gearbox.
For Kimberley, Mr L. A. Cohen said the basis of their case was that in 1965 Leyland's manufactured an unsuitable gearbox for this type of vehicle. For that proposition to be sustained a considerable body of evidence would have to be adduced and the case would take at least three days. It might be that it was not a case for a learned judge to try on his own because of its technical nature and an assessor ought to sit with him.
For Leyland Motors, Mr H. Hague said there was nothing in the pleadings of Kimberley to suggest that the gearbox was basically faulty. If that was to be their case, then Leyland should be given further time to prepare to meet it.
Judge Zigmund said that that was so. It might be that the pleadings would have to be amended. Kimberley had pleaded that the gearbox was unfit for its purpose, not because of a design defect, but because it went wrong. This was a contractual matter and arguments and evidence would have to be strictly confined to the terms of the pleadings.
Asked whether Kimberley's were prepared to go on on this basis, Mr Cohen said he did not feel he could confine himself to the original pleadings. His evidence would lead him to argue the unsuitability of that type of gearbox for that type of vehicle at that time.
Adjourning the case to give an opportunity for the pleadings to be amended, Judge Zigmund said it would be unfair to Leyland Motors to go on. In view of the time the case was likely to take he felt it would be better if it was referred to a special referee.