McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd

McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd

The court held that the defendants (HTA and DJH) were liable for specific defects in design, specification, and inspection, but not for the entirety of the alleged defects or for the cost of demolition and rebuilding. The appropriate measure of damages was the cost of repair for those defects for which each defendant was liable, not the cost of demolition/rebuild. Claims for enabling works, professional fees, and storage were only recoverable to the extent they related directly to the repair of actionable defects. The restitution claim for overpaid professional fees failed as there was no sufficient evidence of mistake or grounds to set aside the compromise agreement.

Parties
Claimant: Ian McGlinn; First Defendant: Waltham Contractors Ltd; Second Defendant: Huw Thomas Associates; Third Defendant: DJ Hartigan & Associates Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Wilson Large & Partners
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Construction/professional Negligence / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claims against HTA and DJH partially succeed; claims against WL dismissed.
Legal Topics
Architects' Duties, Engineers' Duties, Specification and Inspection Obligations, Damages Assessment, Remedial Works, Causation and Foreseeability, Contractual Relationships, Restitution of Fees
Construction Law Professional Negligence Contract Law Architects' Duties Engineers' Duties Specification and Inspection Obligations Damages Assessment Remedial Works +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian McGlinn

Claimant

Waltham Contractors Ltd

First Defendant

Huw Thomas Associates

Second Defendant

DJ Hartigan & Associates Ltd

Third Defendant

Wilson Large & Partners

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Construction/professional Negligence / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the contractual and professional obligations of the defendants?
  2. 2 Were the defendants in breach of contract and/or negligent in the design, specification, inspection, or management of the Maison d'Or project?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate measure of damages for the defects found?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants (HTA and DJH) were liable for specific defects in design, specification, and inspection, but not for the entirety of the alleged defects or for the cost of demolition and rebuilding. The appropriate measure of damages was the cost of repair for those defects for which each defendant was liable, not the cost of demolition/rebuild. Claims for enabling works, professional fees, and storage were only recoverable to the extent they related directly to the repair of actionable defects. The restitution claim for overpaid professional fees failed as there was no sufficient evidence of mistake or grounds to set aside the compromise agreement.

Court Disposition

Claims against HTA and DJH partially succeed; claims against WL dismissed.

Orders

  • HTA to pay £438,850.76 in damages to the claimant for specified defects and associated repair costs, preliminaries, contingency, professional fees, and a proportion of enabling works.
  • DJH to pay £134,825.61 in damages to the claimant for specified structural and M&E defects and associated repair costs, preliminaries, contingency, and professional fees.