Online appliance retailer DRL has won a £470,000 victory against logistics giant Wincanton Group after fighting a High Court judgement at the Court of Appeal.
The court overruled an earlier decision on a dispute that began in 2007 over liability for goods damaged while in the care of Wincantons and the standard of service it provided for DRL.
DRL sells fridges, freezers, washing machines and dishwashers through its Appliances Online and Appliance Deals sites, as well as supplying appliances and websites for retailers including House of Fraser, B&Q, Argos, Next, Marks & Spencer and Boots.
It had recruited Wincanton to deliver goods to customers across the UK, with Wincanton required to offer to unpack and inspect the goods for each customer on delivery. But, DRL claimed that Wincanton had failed to meet the standards required, leaving it with a large number of complaints and almost £3m worth of lost and damaged goods.
Towards the end of the contract, probably because DRL bought the Expert Logistics company to do its own distribution, DRL agreed to pay Wincanton £1m to continue to deliver the remaining orders and ensure a smooth handover with the incoming logistics company in order for liability to be agreed at the end of the contract.
But two days before the contract was due to end, Wincanton demanded a further £300,000 for the release of stock owned by DRL and due to be delivered to its customers.
DRL took its case to the High Court, and while it was agreed that Wincanton’s demands were a breach of their agreement, it ruled DRL was still obliged to make payment for deliveries made by Wincanton.
Now the Court of Appeal has overturned that decision and has ordered Wincanton to repay DRL more than £470,000 plus costs.
DRL finance director Steve Caunce said: “DRL is relieved at the decision of the appeal court. The problems DRL encountered during the relationship with Wincanton were highly material to the business, however we sought to end the relationship in as clean and professional manner as possible.
“Given the events that occurred in the final weeks of the contract, to be found as the party that breached the agreement in the first hearing was very hard to take. We therefore welcome the recent decision.”