Pride Valley Foods Ltd v Hall & Partners & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 805 (28 May 2002)

Pride Valley Foods Ltd v Hall & Partners & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 805 (28 May 2002)

The remitted issue is narrowly confined to whether, if advised of the cost and practicability of the 'mix and match' solution (installing non-combustible panels near flues and compartmentation), Mr Rezaei would have accepted the advice; the suitability of the solution itself is not open for further challenge, as it...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 805
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Pride Valley Foods Limited; Defendant/respondent: Hall & Partners; Defendant/respondent: Hall & Partners (Contract Management) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Causation, Duty to Advise, Remittal of Issues, Expert Evidence, Fire Safety in Construction
Tort Professional Negligence Construction Law Causation Duty to Advise Remittal of Issues Expert Evidence Fire Safety in Construction

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pride Valley Foods Limited

Claimant/appellant

Hall & Partners

Defendant/respondent

Hall & Partners (Contract Management) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the project management consultants (Halls) failed in their duty to advise on fire risks associated with EPS panels and compartmentation
  2. 2 Whether the claimant (Pride) would have accepted appropriate advice if given, and whether such advice would have prevented the fire
  3. 3 Scope of the issues remitted for retrial, specifically regarding the 'mix and match' solution and its cost

Ratio Decidendi

The remitted issue is narrowly confined to whether, if advised of the cost and practicability of the 'mix and match' solution (installing non-combustible panels near flues and compartmentation), Mr Rezaei would have accepted the advice; the suitability of the solution itself is not open for further challenge, as it was already determined that Halls should have recommended it and it would have prevented the fire.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs summarily assessed at £6,000
  • Scope of retrial limited to whether, if advised of the cost and practicability of the 'mix and match' solution, Mr Rezaei would have accepted the advice