Farrer (Practising As Farrer Huxley Associates) & Anor v Wiles

Farrer (Practising As Farrer Huxley Associates) & Anor v Wiles

The trial judge did not err in awarding damages based on the agreed schedule of loss, as the evidence supported the existence of structural defects in 2002 and the cost of remedial works in 2012 was properly established. The rejection of the claim that the conversion works worsened the defects did not undermine the basis for the damages awarded, as the measure was the cost of remedying the original defects, less any credit for costs that would have been incurred in 2002.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Noel Farrer; Appellant/defendant: Farrer Huxley Associates; Respondent/claimant: Susan Wiles
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Norwich County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Measure of Damages, Causation, Professional Duty of Care, Remedial Works, Building Regulations
Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Measure of Damages Causation Professional Duty of Care Remedial Works Building Regulations

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noel Farrer

Appellant/defendant

Farrer Huxley Associates

Appellant/defendant

Susan Wiles

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Norwich County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of damages for professional negligence by awarding costs for remedial works not caused by the defendant's breach
  2. 2 Whether the correct measure of damages is the additional cost of remedying defects in 2012 over the cost in 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in awarding damages based on the agreed schedule of loss, as the evidence supported the existence of structural defects in 2002 and the cost of remedial works in 2012 was properly established. The rejection of the claim that the conversion works worsened the defects did not undermine the basis for the damages awarded, as the measure was the cost of remedying the original defects, less any credit for costs that would have been incurred in 2002.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.