Michael Phillips Architects Ltd v Riklin & Anor

Michael Phillips Architects Ltd v Riklin & Anor

The Claimant failed to comply with professional obligations, did not provide a written contract, and did not properly perform or complete the full suite of architectural services, particularly in contract administration and cost control. The reasonable fee is assessed at 9% of the construction cost base of £405,451, plus limited sums for landscaping and interior design. The Claimant is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its debt collection agents, including harassment and property damage. The Defendants are entitled to set-off and recover damages for breaches and torts proven in the counterclaim.

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 (contract and Tort) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendants on the counterclaim with set-off; Claimant entitled to limited fees subject to set-off.
Legal Topics
Architects' Fees, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Harassment, Damages, Set Off, Professional Standards
Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Architects' Fees Breach of Contract Negligence Vicarious Liability Harassment +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
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 (contract and Tort) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the reasonable value of professional services provided by the Claimant?
  2. 2 Did the Claimant breach contractual and professional duties?
  3. 3 Is the Claimant liable for tortious acts of its debt collection agents?

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to comply with professional obligations, did not provide a written contract, and did not properly perform or complete the full suite of architectural services, particularly in contract administration and cost control. The reasonable fee is assessed at 9% of the construction cost base of £405,451, plus limited sums for landscaping and interior design. The Claimant is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its debt collection agents, including harassment and property damage. The Defendants are entitled to set-off and recover damages for breaches and torts proven in the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendants on the counterclaim with set-off; Claimant entitled to limited fees subject to set-off.

Orders

  • Claimant to recover £42,047 plus VAT at 15% (£6,306) from Defendants for architectural, landscaping, interior design services and expenses.
  • Defendants to recover £58,880.98 from Claimant on the counterclaim for breaches of contract, negligence, and tort (including property damage and harassment).