swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Construction - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 6 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Â
 Trollope and Colls Limited and Holland, Hannen and Cubitts Ltd, trading as Nuclear Civil Contractors (a firm) v The Atomic Power Construction Ltd; 1962 - [1962] 3 All E R 1936
Â
 Gill v Donald Humberstone and Co Ltd; HL 1963 - [1963] 1 WLR 929; [1963] 3 All ER 180
Â
Clay v AJ Crump and Sons Ltd [1964] 1 QB 533
1964
CA
Upjohn LJ
Professional Negligence, Construction
An architect, a demolition contractor and a building contractor were each held liable to an employee of building contractors for the collapse of a wall which, with the architect's approval, demolition contractors had left standing. Held: As far as tests for causation were concerned each case must be tested on its own facts and there was no general rule.
If an architect or engineer designs a house or a bridge so negligently that it falls down, he is liable to every one of those who are injured in the fall.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Monmouthshire County Council v Costelloe (1965) 63 LGR 429; [1965] 5 BLR 83
1965
CA
Lord Denning MR
Local Government, Construction
A question arose under a contract including the ICE conditions as to whether there had historically been claims by the contractor which the Engineer had already determined under clause 66. Held: There had been no such earlier dispute or difference which the Engineer had determined. Lord Denning MR: until there was a claim which had been rejected there could be no dispute or difference.
1 Citers
Â
East Ham Corporation v Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd [1966] 1 AC 406; [1965] 3 All ER 619
1965
HL
Lord Upjohn, Lord Guest, Lord Cohen and Lord Pearson
Damages, Construction
In cases in which the plaintiff is seeking damages for the defective performance of a building contract, which is a contract for labour and materials, the normal measure of his damages is the cost of carrying out remedial work, or re-instatement. Reasonableness is a part of the primary assessment of damages as well as of mitigation of damage.
Lord Cohen said: "the learned editors of Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts, 8th ed. (1959) say at p.319 that there are in fact three possible bases of assessing damages, namely, (a) the cost of reinstatement; (b) the difference in cost to the builder of the actual work done and work specified; or (c) the diminution in value of the work due to the breach of contract. They go on: 'There is no doubt that wherever it is reasonable for the employer to insist upon reinstatement the courts will treat the cost of reinstatement as the measure of damage.' In the present case it could not be disputed that it was reasonable for the appellants to insist upon reinstatement and in these circumstances it necessarily follows that on the question of damage the trial judge arrived at the right conclusion.”
Lord Upjohn stated that in a case of defective building work reinstatement was the normal measure of damages.
1 Citers
Â
Moresk Cleaners Ltd v Hicks [1966] 2 Lloyds Rep 338; (1966) 4 BLR 50
1966
Sir Walker Carter OR
Construction, Professional Negligence
If a dangerous defect arises as the result of a negligent omission on the part of an architect, he cannot excuse himself from liability on the grounds that he delegated the duty of design of the relevant part of the building works, unless he obtains the permission of his employer to do so. A consultant in that situation must either decline the work, advise the client to obtain expert advice for that particular part of the work or engage an expert itself whilst retaining all responsibility to the client.
1 Citers
Â
