Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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.  















Construction - From: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 12 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Blair v Osborne and Tomkins and Another [1971] 1 QB 78; [1971] 2 WLR 503; [1971] 1 All ER 468
12 Nov 1970
CA
Lord Denning M.R., Widgery and Megaw L.JJ
Intellectual Property, Construction, Damages, Contract
Two neighbours engaged an architect to draw up plans for a building at the rear of their houses. He charged them the full RIBA rate for the plans. They did not ask the architect to build the house or supervise the project but handed the plans to a builder, who made minor amendments, then submitted them as his own design. The architect sued for infringement of the copyright in the plans. He appealed an award of only nominal damages. Held: The nominal award was correct. The contract included an implied term that the land owners would be free to use the plans to build the house, including necessary licences. The attribution was wrongful, but was not the source of damage.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ lip ]

 
 Brickfield Properties Ltd v Newton; CA 1971 - [1971] 1 WLR 862; [1971] 3 All ER 328

 
 Hounslow London Borough Council v Twickenham Gardens Development Limited; 1971 - [1971] Ch 233

 
 Secretary of State for Employment v The Mitchell Construction Company Ltd; CA 26-Nov-1971 - [1971] EWCA Civ 3; [1972] ITR 24
 
Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] EWCA Civ 5; [1972] 2 All ER 1322; [1972] 1 WLR 1009
13 Apr 1972
CA

Construction

[ Bailii ]

 
 Evans Marshall and Co Ltd v Bertola SA; CA 1973 - [1973] 1 WLR 349
 
Sutcliffe v Thackrah and Others [1974] AC 727; [1974] 1 All ER 859; [1974] 2 WLR 295; [1974] 1 Lloyds Rep 318
1974
HL
Lord Reid, Lord Hodson, Lord Morris and Lord Salmon, Viscount Dilhorne
Construction, Arbitration, Professional Negligence
In acting under clause 66 of the ICE conditions, the Engineer was in the intermediate position of a quasi-arbitrator. The House described in terms of 'fairness' the duty of an architect when acting not as an arbitrator or quasi-arbitrator but in the role of valuer or certifier.
An action for damages for negligence will lie against a valuer to whom the parties have referred the question of valuation if one of them suffers loss as the result of his negligent valuation.
Lord Reid spoke of a duty to act in a fair and unbiased manner or fairly and impartially. Viscount Dilhorne regarded an honest exercise of professional skill and judgment as enough.
1 Citers


 
C R Taylor (Wholesale) Ltd v Hepworths Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 659; [1977] 2 All ER 784
1977

May J
Damages, Construction
May J referred with approval to a statement in McGregor On Damages (13th edn, 1972) paras 1059-1061 that in deciding between diminution in value and cost of reinstatement the appropriate test was the reasonableness of the plaintiffs desire to reinstate the property and remarked that the damages to be awarded were to be reasonable as between plaintiff and defendant. He concluded that in the case before him to award the notional cost of reinstatement would be unreasonable since it would put the plaintiffs in a far better financial position then they would have been before the fire occurred.
1 Citers


 
Commonwealth Construction Co Ltd v Imperial Oil (1977) 69 DLR (3d) 558
1977

de Grandpre J
Commonwealth, Insurance, Construction
(Supreme Court of Canada) de Grandpre J said: "On any construction site, and especially when the building being erected is a complex chemical plant, there is ever present the possibility of damage by one tradesman to the property of another and to the construction as a whole. Should this possibility become reality, the question of negligence in the absence of complete property coverage would have to be debated in Court. By recognising in all tradesmen an insurable interest based on that very real possibility, which itself has its source in the contractual arrangements opening the doors of the job site to the tradesmen, the Courts would apply to the construction field the principle expressed so long ago in the area of bailment. Thus all the parties whose joint efforts have one common goal, eg the completion of the construction, would be spared the necessity of fighting between themselves should an accident occur involving the possible responsibility of one of them."
1 Citers


 
Radford v De Froberville [1977] 1 WLR 1262; [1978] 1 All ER 33
2 Jan 1977

Oliver J
Damages, Construction
A contract was made for the sale of a plot of land adjoining a house belonging to the plaintiff (the vendor) but occupied by his tenants, under which the defendant (the purchaser) undertook to build a house on the plot and also to erect a wall to a certain specification on the plot so as to separate it from the plaintiff's land. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant for damages for breach of contract by reason of her failure to erect the dividing wall, but an issue arose as to the measure of the damages. The defendant having failed to build the dividing wall on the land purchased from the plaintiff, the plaintiff proposed to build a dividing wall on his own land, and claimed the cost of doing so from the defendant; whereas the defendant maintained that the appropriate measure of damages was the consequent diminution in the value of the plaintiff's property, which was nil. Held: The court described the distinction made in the Liesbosch between a plaintiff's capacity to mitigate his loss and his duty to do so: "No doubt the measure of damages and the plaintiff's duty and ability to mitigate are logically distinct concepts (see for instance, the speech of Lord Wright in Liesbosch (Dredger) v SS Edison (Owners) [1933] AC 449, 456-469). But to some extent, at least, they are mirror images . ."
A contracting party should not use the remedy of damages to recover "an uncovenanted profit." However: "If [the plaintiff] contracts for the supply of that which he thinks serves his interests - be they commercial, aesthetic or merely eccentric - then if that which is contracted for is not supplied by the other contracting party I do not see why, in principle, he should not be compensated by being provided with the cost of supplying it through someone else or in a different way, subject to the proviso, of course, that he is seeking compensation for a genuine loss and not merely using a technical breach to secure an uncovenanted profit." It was for the plaintiff to judge what performance he required in exchange for the price. The court should honour that choice.
Oliver J said: "In the instant case, the plaintiff says in evidence that he wishes to carry out the work on his own land and there are, as it seems to me, three questions that I have to answer. First, am I satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff has a genuine and serious intention of doing the work? Secondly, is the carrying out of the work on his own land a reasonable thing for the plaintiff to do? Thirdly, does it make any difference that the plaintiff is not personally in occupation of the land but desires to do the work for the benefit of his tenants?"
and: "Once proceedings have been commenced and are defended, I do not think that the defendant can complain that it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to delay carrying out the work for himself before the damages have been assessed, more particularly where his right to any damages at all is being contested, for he may never recoup the cost. If, therefore, the proceedings are conducted with due expedition, there seems to me to be no injustice if, by reason of the time that it takes for them to come to trial, the result of inflation is to increase the pecuniary amount of the defendant's ultimate liability ..."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council; HL 12-May-1977 - [1978] AC 728; [1977] CLY 2030; [1977] 2 All ER 492; [1977] UKHL 4
 
Canterbury Pipe Lines v The Christchurch Drainage Board (1979) 16 BLR 76
1979

Cooke J
Commonwealth, Construction
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) "In Hatrick the term "fairness" was avoided in the judgments, Richmond J saying that he resisted it partly because of its vagueness and partly because it might be regarded as equivalent to natural justice. . . . In our opinion it should be held in the light of these authorities that in certifying or acting under Clause 13 here the Engineer, though not bound to act judicially in the ordinary sense, was bound to act fairly and impartially. Duties expressed in terms of fairness are being recognised in other fields of law also, such as immigration. Fairness is a broad and even elastic concept, but it is not altogether the worse for that. In relation to persons bound to act judicially fairness requires compliance with the rules of natural justice. In other cases this is not necessarily so."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.