Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 206 (9 February 2001)

Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 206 (9 February 2001)

The applications for permission to appeal were refused because the judge's findings on the periods of delay and the architects' negligence were comprehensive, supported by evidence, and involved complex factual assessments that the Court of Appeal would not disturb without clear error. Both parties failed to show any realistic prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 206
Parties
Claimant: The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust; Defendants: Frederick Alexander Hammond and Others (specifically the 8th, 14th and 15th Defendants, WGI International)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From the Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time Certificates, Architects' Duty of Care, Concurrent Delay, Measure of Damages for Delay, Negligence in Certification
Construction Law Professional Negligence Extension of Time Certificates Architects' Duty of Care Concurrent Delay Measure of Damages for Delay Negligence in Certification

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust

Claimant

Frederick Alexander Hammond and Others (specifically the 8th, 14th and 15th Defendants, WGI International)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From the Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the architects were negligent in issuing extension of time certificates
  2. 2 Whether the architects breached their professional duty of skill and care
  3. 3 Whether the measure of damages claimed by the claimant is recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for permission to appeal were refused because the judge's findings on the periods of delay and the architects' negligence were comprehensive, supported by evidence, and involved complex factual assessments that the Court of Appeal would not disturb without clear error. Both parties failed to show any realistic prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • No order for costs in relation to applications 95 and 96
  • Separate order for costs in application 97