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 failed. If the owner of a plot of land instructs a builder to erect a dwelling house but he fails to include a damp course, leaving the house, not fit for human habitation. Parliament could not have intended that the builder would be free from any duty under section 1(1). The exception (and the exception to the exception) under subsection (2) would serve no purpose. Subsection (4) was conclusive in favour of the construction that includes nonfeasance within the scope of the duty. If a developer who is professionally qualified, e.g. an architect or surveyor, instructs a builder to erect a dwelling house or to convert an existing house into a number of separate dwellings. His instructions are detailed, but make no provision for inclusion of a damp course, which is necessary if the dwelling is to be fit for habitation when completed. The builder will be exempt under subsection (2). But the developer, who will not have physically done any work, is to be treated under subsection (4) as a person who has taken on the work. There was no difference between acts of commission and of omission.
Judges:
Balcombe LJ
Citations:
[1991] 1 WLR 783
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Alderson, Alderson v Beetham Organisation Limited CA 2-Apr-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Construction, Limitation
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180873