Cunningham (t/a Urban Developments) v Buckley & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 224 (04 April 2017)

Cunningham (t/a Urban Developments) v Buckley & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 224 (04 April 2017)

The judge was entitled to find the claimant not responsible for the bi-folding doors based on the evidence; VAT was chargeable at 17.5% as statutory building control approval was not proved; the counterclaim for defective work was properly quantified using expert evidence despite unreliable evidence from the defendants' witness.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 224
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Nathan Cunningham (T/A Urban Developments); Appellant/defendant: Rupert Buckley; Appellant/defendant: Heidi Milner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Building Contract Disputes, Counterclaim for Defective Work, VAT Rate on Building Works
Contract Law Construction Law Tax Law Building Contract Disputes Counterclaim for Defective Work VAT Rate on Building Works

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathan Cunningham (T/A Urban Developments)

Respondent/claimant

Rupert Buckley

Appellant/defendant

Heidi Milner

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was responsible for defective bi-folding doors
  2. 2 Whether the correct VAT rate was 17.5% or 5%
  3. 3 Whether the counterclaim for defective work should be allowed given lack of reliable evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find the claimant not responsible for the bi-folding doors based on the evidence; VAT was chargeable at 17.5% as statutory building control approval was not proved; the counterclaim for defective work was properly quantified using expert evidence despite unreliable evidence from the defendants' witness.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed.