Vyas & Anor v Goraya, (t/a Taj Construction Roofing) [2016] EWCA Civ 1095 (09 November 2016)

Vyas & Anor v Goraya, (t/a Taj Construction Roofing) [2016] EWCA Civ 1095 (09 November 2016)

The trial judge's assessment of damages was correct in principle, with the exception of a small sum for evidenced additional costs. The appellants failed to prove entitlement to higher damages or to additional heads of claim. The quantum for distress and inconvenience was reasonable and consistent with appellate authority.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 1095
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 From Central London County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages increased by £341.20 to £121,000.64; all other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages Assessment, Building Disputes, Remedial Works, Liquidated Damages, Distress and Inconvenience, Quantum of Damages
Contract Law Construction Law Breach of Contract Damages Assessment Building Disputes Remedial Works Liquidated Damages Distress and Inconvenience +1 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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 From Central London County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of damages for breach of a building contract
  2. 2 Whether additional heads of claim should have been allowed
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages for distress and inconvenience was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's assessment of damages was correct in principle, with the exception of a small sum for evidenced additional costs. The appellants failed to prove entitlement to higher damages or to additional heads of claim. The quantum for distress and inconvenience was reasonable and consistent with appellate authority.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages increased by £341.20 to £121,000.64; all other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • Award of damages varied to £121,000.64
  • Directions for submissions on costs of the appeal