Abbott and Another v Will Gannon and Smith Ltd: CA 2 Mar 2005

The claimant had employed the defendants to design refurbishment works for their hotel. The work was said to be negligent, and the claimant sought damages. The defendant argued as a preliminary point that the claim was time barred. The question was asked as to whether Pirelli remained good law, in the light of the decision in Murphy v Brentwood.
Held: The court was bound by the decisions in Pirelli and Ketteman, the situation being on all fours with Pirelli, whatever doubts there might be about it: ‘Pirelli was approved in Ketteman and was cited without disapproval in Murphy by the House which included two members (Lords Bridge and Brandon) who were party to the decision in Pirelli. It has not been expressly over-ruled and I am not persuaded that this has been done impliedly. Lord Lloyd left open the question as to whether Pirelli was still the law in England. It seems to me that only the House of Lords can decide whether it is or not. ‘


Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Tuckey And Lord Justice Clarke


[2005] BLR 195, [2005] EWCA Civ 198, Times 29-Apr-2005




England and Wales


CitedPirelli General Cable Works v Oscar Faber and Partners HL 2-Jan-1983
The plaintiff asked the defendant consulting engineer to design an extension to their factory in 1969. Not later than in April 1970, cracks developed in the chimney. In 1977 the cause of the damage was discovered. It arose from design faults in the . .
CitedForster v Outred and Co CA 1981
A mother signed a mortgage deed charging her property to H as security for a loan to her son. She claimed the solicitor had been negligent in his advice. The solicitor replied that the claim was out of time. The loss accrued not when demand for . .
CitedBellefield Computer Services Limited, Unigate Properties Limited; Unigate Dairies Limited; Unigate (Uk) Limited; Unigate Dairies (Western) Limited v E Turner and Sons Limited Admn 28-Jan-2000
The Defendant builders constructed a steel building to be used as, inter alia. a dairy. The original owners sold it to the appellants. A fire spread from the storage area to the rest of the dairy and caused much damage. The Builders, had they . .
CitedKetteman v Hansel Properties Ltd HL 1987
Houses were built on defective foundations. The purchasers sued the builders and later the architects who designed them. The defendants argued that the houses were doomed from the start so that the cause of action accrued, not when the physical . .
CitedMurphy v Brentwood District Council HL 26-Jul-1990
Anns v Merton Overruled
The claimant appellant was a house owner. He had bought the house from its builders. Those builders had employed civil engineers to design the foundations. That design was negligent. They had submitted the plans to the defendant Council for approval . .
CitedInvercargill City Council v Hamlin PC 12-Feb-1996
(New Zealand) Seventeen years earlier the plaintiff had asked a builder to construct a house for him, but it now appeared that the foundations had been inadequate. The building company no longer being in existence, he sought damages from the local . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Construction

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223109