The purpose of this article is to consider aspects of the Privy Council’s decision in July 2001 of the case of The Bay Hotel Resort Ltd and Zurich Indemnity Company of Canada v. Cavalier Construction Co Ltd and Cavalier Construction Co Ltd (a Turks & Caicos Islands company) .1 In addition to interesting points on the applicable law on an arbitration and on joinder, the case, heard on appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Turks and Caicos Islands, raised the “no-loss” argument, albeit on different facts, rehearsed, pending the appeal to the Privy Council, by the House of Lords in the Panatown case. Lord Cooke of Thorndon, who gave the only judgment in The Bay Hotel v. Cavalier decision, has been an advocate and exponent of cross-jurisdiction influences between the common law systems and this case forms part of a wider phenomenon in that respect. It is self-evidently important for those who participate in the construction process under those systems to understand with certainty who may claim against whom, for what and in what circumstances and this is true of third party rights, whether in contract or tort. The special position of the Privy Council has given it unique opportunities to shape the development of the common law, but this may not be the recent or future reality. It is suggested that The Bay Hotel v. Cavalier represented such an opportunity.

The title of this article is the subheading given to the last passage of the last speech by Lord Cooke of Thorndon in the House of Lords in Delaware Mansions Ltd v. Westminster City Council .2 Before he delivered it, Lord Steyn, noting Lord Cooke”s impending departure, paid “tribute to his massive contribution to the coherent and rational development of the law in New Zealand, in England and throughout the common law world”.3 In Delaware ,

---

349