National Trust Thames and Chilterns Region v Mates (t/a Ccw Mates Stone Restoration) & Ors

National Trust Thames and Chilterns Region v Mates (t/a Ccw Mates Stone Restoration) & Ors

The claimants failed to prove that Mr. Mates was retained as main contractor for the roof works or that he retained Ajap as his subcontractor. There was no evidence of a contract making Mr. Mates responsible for the acts or defaults of Ajap or Grace. The claimants did not establish any agreement or implied terms that would make Mr. Mates liable for defective workmanship or materials supplied by others.

Parties
Claimant: The National Trust Thames and Chilterns Region; First Defendant: Charles Mates t/a CCW Mates Stone Restoration; Second Defendant: AJAP Contracting Limited; Third Defendant: Grace Construction Products Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claim against first defendant dismissed
Legal Topics
Main Contractor Liability, Subcontractor Liability, Implied Terms, Negligence, Defective Workmanship, Agency
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Main Contractor Liability Subcontractor Liability Implied Terms Negligence Defective Workmanship +1 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The National Trust Thames and Chilterns Region

Claimant

Charles Mates t/a CCW Mates Stone Restoration

First Defendant

AJAP Contracting Limited

Second Defendant

Grace Construction Products Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Mates was retained as main contractor for the roof works of the East Curved Link
  2. 2 Whether Mr. Mates retained Ajap as his subcontractor
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Mates is liable for defective workmanship or materials supplied by Ajap or Grace

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove that Mr. Mates was retained as main contractor for the roof works or that he retained Ajap as his subcontractor. There was no evidence of a contract making Mr. Mates responsible for the acts or defaults of Ajap or Grace. The claimants did not establish any agreement or implied terms that would make Mr. Mates liable for defective workmanship or materials supplied by others.

Court Disposition

Claim against first defendant dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay costs of the first defendant including costs reserved on an interlocutory hearing, to be assessed on the standard basis
  • Permission to appeal refused