The claimants appealed rejection of their claim as out of time under the Act. The property was constructed in 1994, but came to suffer from damp. They were advised of the defect and possible action in 1995, but failed to begin proceedings until 2001. The claimant said the limitation period began when remedial works failed.
Held: Section 1 imposes a duty of care upon builders of dwellings. 1(5) sets a limitation period of 6 years, but contains a proviso where work is done after completion ‘to rectify the work . . already done’. Parliament intended that there should be a fresh cause of action for breach of the duty to provide a dwelling fit for habitation when the further work did not rectify the original work as intended. The appeal was allowed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice Longmore
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 408, Times 19-Apr-2003, Gazette 12-Jun-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1686
Links:
Statutes:
Defective Premises Act 1972 1(5)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Andrews v Schooling CA 1991
The plaintiff owned a 199 year lease of premises and sought compensation under the Act damp from the cellar. The defence said the development had not included work done on the cellar and therefore section 1 did not apply.
Held: The defence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Construction, Limitation
Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.180458