Hart Investments Ltd v Terence Maurice Charles Fidler (t/a Terence Fidler Partnership) & Anor [2007] EWHC 1058 (TCC) (30 March 2007)

Hart Investments Ltd v Terence Maurice Charles Fidler (t/a Terence Fidler Partnership) & Anor [2007] EWHC 1058 (TCC) (30 March 2007)

Mr Fidler breached his contractual and concurrent tortious duty to the claimant by failing to warn the contractor of the obvious and immediate danger posed by unsupported excavations, which he observed during his site visit on 3 February 2004, and this omission caused the collapse and resulting economic loss.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1058 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Hart Investments Limited; First Defendant: Terence Maurice Charles Fidler (T/A Terence Fidler Partnership); Second Defendant: Larchpark Limited (In Liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial of Liability
Outcome
Judgment for claimant against first defendant; damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Engineer’s Duty of Care, Concurrent Liability in Contract and Tort, Temporary Works Design, Causation in Negligence, Economic Loss, Breach of Contract, Façade Retention, Building Collapse Liability
Construction Law Professional Negligence Contract Law Tort Law Engineer’s Duty of Care Concurrent Liability in Contract and Tort Temporary Works Design Causation in Negligence +4 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hart Investments Limited

Claimant

Terence Maurice Charles Fidler (T/A Terence Fidler Partnership)

First Defendant

Larchpark Limited (In Liquidation)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Fidler failed to design or require appropriate temporary support for underpinning
  2. 2 Whether Mr Fidler owed and breached a contractual and/or tortious duty to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether Mr Fidler’s actions or omissions caused the collapse and resulting loss

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Fidler breached his contractual and concurrent tortious duty to the claimant by failing to warn the contractor of the obvious and immediate danger posed by unsupported excavations, which he observed during his site visit on 3 February 2004, and this omission caused the collapse and resulting economic loss.

Court Disposition

Judgment for claimant against first defendant; damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Judgment for damages to be assessed in favour of the claimant against Mr Fidler.