Cunningham (t/a Urban Developments) v Buckley & Anor

Cunningham (t/a Urban Developments) v Buckley & Anor

The judge was entitled to find the claimant not responsible for the bi-folding doors based on the evidence. The VAT exemption did not apply as statutory building control approval was not obtained, and the burden of proof was on the appellants. The counterclaim for defective work was properly quantified using expert evidence.

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 to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Counterclaims for Defective Work, VAT Liability, Burden of Proof
Contract Law Construction Law Building Contracts Counterclaims for Defective Work VAT Liability Burden of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
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 to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was responsible for the cost of rectifying 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 in the absence of reliable evidence of rectification costs

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find the claimant not responsible for the bi-folding doors based on the evidence. The VAT exemption did not apply as statutory building control approval was not obtained, and the burden of proof was on the appellants. The counterclaim for defective work was properly quantified using expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

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