Michael Phillips Architects Ltd v Riklin & Anor [2011] EWHC 27 (TCC) (12 January 2011)

Michael Phillips Architects Ltd v Riklin & Anor [2011] EWHC 27 (TCC) (12 January 2011)

The Claimant failed to comply with professional obligations, did not provide a written contract, and performed services negligently, particularly in cost control and certification. The reasonable fee is assessed at 9% of the construction cost (£405,451), plus limited sums for landscaping and interior design. The Claimant is vicariously liable for harassment and property damage caused by its debt collection agents. The Defendants are entitled to set off their counterclaim, which exceeds the Claimant's entitlement.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 27 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Michael Phillips Architects Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Cornell Clark Riklin; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Susan Oglesby Riklin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology & Construction Court) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendants on balance of claims and counterclaims; net sum due to Defendants.
Legal Topics
Architects' Fees, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Harassment, Damages, Set Off, Listed Buildings, Professional Standards
Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Construction Law Architects' Fees Breach of Contract Negligence Vicarious Liability +5 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Phillips Architects Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Cornell Clark Riklin

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Susan Oglesby Riklin

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology & Construction Court) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the reasonable value of architectural and interior design services provided by the Claimant?
  2. 2 Did the Claimant breach contractual and professional duties?
  3. 3 Is the Claimant vicariously liable for torts committed by its debt collection agents?

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to comply with professional obligations, did not provide a written contract, and performed services negligently, particularly in cost control and certification. The reasonable fee is assessed at 9% of the construction cost (£405,451), plus limited sums for landscaping and interior design. The Claimant is vicariously liable for harassment and property damage caused by its debt collection agents. The Defendants are entitled to set off their counterclaim, which exceeds the Claimant's entitlement.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendants on balance of claims and counterclaims; net sum due to Defendants.

Orders

  • Claimant entitled to £42,047 plus VAT at 15% (£6,306) for services rendered.
  • Defendants entitled to £58,880.98 on counterclaim for defective works and harassment.