Building & Construction (Legal Cases)

Notes: Legal Cases

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/
England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions

http://www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html#ew/cases/EWHC/TCC


http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2019.html
SGL Carbon Fibres Limited v RBG Ltd [2012] CSOH 19

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2011/3449.html
Leander Construction Ltd v Mulalley & Company Ltd [2011] EWHC 3449 (TCC)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2010/2300.html
Cooperative Group Ltd v John Allen Associates Ltd [2010] EWHC 2300 (TCC) (14 September 2010)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2009/B25.html
Costain Ltd v Charles Haswell & Partners Ltd [2009] EWHC B25 (TCC) (24 September 2009)

Successfully Claiming Prolongation Costs

In a damages claim you must establish that the breach of contract caused actual loss. A claim for prolongation costs is a claim for the costs of the additional period the contractor is required to spend on site to complete the works over and above the contract period. An early delay may disrupt the works, but it does not follow automatically that it will extend the time required for completion, even if it is on the critical path. All sorts of things happen on construction sites which can radically change the expected outcome of events. In order to make a claim good, it is necessary to analyse what actually happened after the delaying event to trace through that delay and demonstrate its effect on the completion date. Costain's expert failed to do this and this omission was fatal to the claim.

It is also necessary to analyse in detail the actual costs that have been increased as a result of the prolongation. Particularly on a site such as the one in this case, with multiple structures being constructed, not all site overheads will necessarily be required if one part of the works is delayed, even if that delay leads to a delay in completion overall. The judge found that Costain had failed to establish that the costs of maintaining the site as a whole (or head office overheads) were extended as a result of delays to the foundations.

Although it appears that Costain was justified in its claim for negligence against Haswell, its quantum claim didn't justify the costs it expended to bring the case to trial. When proceedings were commenced, Costain claimed £3.5m against Haswell for breach of duty, but this sum was reduced to £1.5m shortly before trial commenced. In fact, Costain recovered only £163,478.51. Was it worth it?

Taken from: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=87248
http://construction-manager.co.uk/construction-professional/garry-winters-case-notes-march-2012/

Jerram Falkus Construction v Fenice Investments Technology and Construction Court, July 2011

http://www.geoffreyleaver.com/Our-News/Legal-stuff/What-is-the-scope-of-a-Quantity-Surveyors-duty-of-care

Architect's responsibility for defective work.

In the recent case of Dhamija v Sunningdale Joineries Limited [2010] EWHC 2396 a dispute arose over allegations of over-valuation and defective works. The employers brought proceedings against the contractor, architect and quantity surveyor. The employers claimed the quantity surveyor owed them a duty to: "only value work that had been properly executed by the contractor and was not obviously defective." The quantity surveyor argued that its duty was to include in the interim certificates an amount based on the works properly executed, as advised by the architect.

The Court held that, on the facts, there was an implied term that the quantity surveyor would act with reasonable skill and care when valuing the works properly executed by the contractor for the purposes of issuing interim certificates. However, the court refused to go further and infer a positive obligation on the quantity surveyor not to value work that was obviously defective.On the facts, and relying on Sutcliffe v Chippendale & Edmondson, the court confirmed that the architect had responsibility for the quality of the works and should have notified the quantity surveyor of any defects that may affect the valuation of an interim certificate.

Of particular note is that the court also rejected the suggestion (set out at paragraph 2-230, Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts, (Sweet & Maxwell, Volume 1, 11th edition, 1995)) that, if the quantity surveyor noticed defective work when visiting site, then it was under a duty to inform the architect of this in case the architect had missed it. The court stated that there was no authority for such a duty.

Comment

There are relatively few reported judgments on the scope of the duty of care that a quantity surveyor owes when valuing work for an interim certificate. This judgment will be a useful reminder to both architects and quantity surveyors that a quantity surveyor’s duty is limited to issues of quantity and does not extend to issues of quality.

Time Impact Analysis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRhbzfY2aRw