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: 1980 To: 1984
This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
G W Atkins Ltd v Scott (1980) 7 Const LJ 215
1980
CA
Stephenson LJ, Ackner LJ, Sir David Cairns
Construction, Damages
A building owner complained of defective tiling installed by the appellant. He claimed the cost of retiling the whole roof. The county court judge found that the tiling was defective, but that the defects were mostly cosmetic and of a minor character. He refused to give the plaintiff the cost of reinstatement, but awarded instead the sum of £250 as damages for bad workmanship. The defects as not being very serious, and accordingly that it would be unreasonable to go to the expense of completely stripping the tiles. Held: The appeal failed.
Sir David Cairns said that the judge's finding that it would be unreasonable to award the cost of reinstatement was not open to attack on appeal: "[Counsel for the defendant] accepts that in some cases it would be grossly unreasonable, or capricious, or perverse, to suggest reinstatement and that in such a case some other basis of assessment must be found. I confess that I can see no reason in principle, nor any support in the authorities, for the proposition that the test is other than lack of reasonableness simpliciter . ."
Ackner LJ said: "I accept that the court must have some regard for the predilections of the building owner, but that is only one of the factors. To take a wholly fanciful example; the half round tiles at the edge of the bath . . were white. They did not match the tiles as they should have done. If, for the purpose of this argument, they could only have been removed and replaced by the removal of all the tiles in the bathroom at a cost of several hundred pounds, would it have been reasonable for the plaintiff to have required this to be done? [Counsel for the defendant] contends that his client is entitled to say, "I want what I bargained for. What you have done is unacceptable to me." Such an approach seems to me to make his client the sole arbiter of what is "reasonable.""
Stephenson LJ agreed with both judgments.
1 Citers
Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] AC 520; [1982] 3 WLR 477; [1982] 3 All ER 201; [1982] UKHL 4; [1982] UKHL 12; [1982] Com LR 221; 1982 SC (HL) 244; 1982 SLT 492; 21 BLR 66
15 Jul 1982
HL
Negligence, Construction, Scotland
The defendant was a specialist sub-contractor brought in to lay a floor. In laying the composition floor the defenders used too wet a mixture and applied too thin a top coat and failed to cure the material properly. As a result cracks began to appear in the floor and it started to break up. The floor required replacement and the pursuers contended that while this replacement work was carried out they would lose business and incur irrecoverable overheads. There was no direct contractual relationship between them. Held: Assuming the allegations to be true, there was a sufficiently close relationship between the parties to give rise to a relationship of care, and if proved, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover its financial losses.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd; 1983 - [1984] 1 All ER 504; (1983) BLR 94; [1984] 1 WLR 504