Martell v Roszkowski & Ors [2024] EWHC 840 (TCC) (16 April 2024)

Martell v Roszkowski & Ors [2024] EWHC 840 (TCC) (16 April 2024)

GSB breached the building contract by failing to use RC35 concrete and failing to comply with the Structural Specification after 15 April 2015. The concrete did not meet the required specification, causing the need for remedial works. MGA breached its duty by failing to monitor compliance with specification, failing to require testing, and failing to notify the claimant of breaches. Both breaches caused the claimant's loss. The claimant did not commit a repudiatory breach; GSB is not entitled to lost profit damages. The claimant's losses are recoverable subject to assessment.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 840 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Miss Perdita Martell; First Defendant: Mr Grzegorz Roszkowski; Second Defendant: Mr Slawomir Walczak; Third Defendant: Martin Gustyn & Associates Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Technology and Construction / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed against GSB and MGA; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Defective Works, Duty of Care, Remedial Costs, Mitigation of Loss, Repudiatory Breach, Professional Duties
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Breach of Contract Defective Works Duty of Care Remedial Costs +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Perdita Martell

Claimant

Mr Grzegorz Roszkowski

First Defendant

Mr Slawomir Walczak

Second Defendant

Martin Gustyn & Associates Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Technology and Construction / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did GSB breach the building contract by failing to use concrete of the correct specification and failing to design/install a suitable waterproofing system?
  2. 2 Did MGA breach its contractual duty by failing to monitor works and ensure compliance with specification, and by failing to advise on waterproofing?
  3. 3 Did the breaches cause the claimant's loss?

Ratio Decidendi

GSB breached the building contract by failing to use RC35 concrete and failing to comply with the Structural Specification after 15 April 2015. The concrete did not meet the required specification, causing the need for remedial works. MGA breached its duty by failing to monitor compliance with specification, failing to require testing, and failing to notify the claimant of breaches. Both breaches caused the claimant's loss. The claimant did not commit a repudiatory breach; GSB is not entitled to lost profit damages. The claimant's losses are recoverable subject to assessment.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed against GSB and MGA; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • GSB and MGA liable for remedial costs; quantum to be assessed.
  • GSB's counterclaim for lost profit dismissed.