Bole & Anor v Huntsbuild Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 483 (TCC) (13 March 2009)

Bole & Anor v Huntsbuild Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 483 (TCC) (13 March 2009)

Both Huntsbuild and RMA breached their duties under the Defective Premises Act 1972 by failing to ensure adequate foundation depths in accordance with NHBC standards for removed trees, resulting in a property unfit for habitation due to extensive heave and cracking. Claimants are entitled to recover the cost of remedial works including a piled raft solution and damages for distress.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 483 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Alexander John McMinn Bole; Claimant: Stefanie van den Haak; First Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Huntsbuild Limited; Second Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Richard Money (t/a Richard Money Associates)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed against both defendants under the Defective Premises Act 1972.
Legal Topics
Defective Premises Act 1972, Fitness for Habitation, Professional Negligence, Breach of Contract, Damages for Distress, Remedial Works, Limitation Period
Construction Law Tort Law Contract Law Defective Premises Act 1972 Fitness for Habitation Professional Negligence Breach of Contract Damages for Distress +2 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander John McMinn Bole

Claimant

Stefanie van den Haak

Claimant

Huntsbuild Limited

First Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Richard Money (t/a Richard Money Associates)

Second Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was Huntsbuild in breach of contract or the Defective Premises Act 1972?
  2. 2 Did RMA carry out its work in a professional manner under section 1 of the DPA?
  3. 3 Was the property fit for habitation within section 1 of the DPA?

Ratio Decidendi

Both Huntsbuild and RMA breached their duties under the Defective Premises Act 1972 by failing to ensure adequate foundation depths in accordance with NHBC standards for removed trees, resulting in a property unfit for habitation due to extensive heave and cracking. Claimants are entitled to recover the cost of remedial works including a piled raft solution and damages for distress.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed against both defendants under the Defective Premises Act 1972.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Claimants the cost of remedial works including piled raft foundation solution (£214,116.91 less £2,530.69).
  • Defendants to pay agreed general damages for distress (£4,500).