Vyas & Anor v Goraya, (t/a Taj Construction Roofing)

Vyas & Anor v Goraya, (t/a Taj Construction Roofing)

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of increasing the damages by £341.20 for evidenced propane gas and equipment hire costs. The trial judge's approach to quantum, including adopting the median expert figure for remedial works and dismissing other heads of claim, was correct. The appellants failed to prove entitlement to further sums, and the judge's findings on distress and inconvenience were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The liquidated damages clause was not proved to be incorporated. No further award was justified.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Prakash Vyas; Claimant/appellant: Minaxi Vyas; Defendant/respondent: Raj Goraya, T/A Taj Construction Roofing
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages increased by £341.20; all other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages, Building Contracts, Quantum of Damages, Liquidated Damages, Distress and Inconvenience
Contract Law Construction Law Breach of Contract Damages Building Contracts Quantum of Damages Liquidated Damages Distress and Inconvenience

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prakash Vyas

Claimant/appellant

Minaxi Vyas

Claimant/appellant

Raj Goraya, T/A Taj Construction Roofing

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the quantum of damages awarded for breach of a building contract
  2. 2 Whether additional heads of claim should have been allowed
  3. 3 Whether the judge properly applied the law on damages for distress and inconvenience

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of increasing the damages by £341.20 for evidenced propane gas and equipment hire costs. The trial judge's approach to quantum, including adopting the median expert figure for remedial works and dismissing other heads of claim, was correct. The appellants failed to prove entitlement to further sums, and the judge's findings on distress and inconvenience were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The liquidated damages clause was not proved to be incorporated. No further award was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages increased by £341.20; all other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • Damages award varied to £121,000.64 in place of £120,659.44
  • Directions for written submissions on costs of the appeal