Leslie v Farrar Construction Ltd

Leslie v Farrar Construction Ltd

The appeal was dismissed because Mr Leslie, by agreeing to final payments on each completed development without investigation and with knowledge that actual build costs might differ from budgeted costs, voluntarily assumed the risk of overpayment. The parties treated each project as a closed transaction, and Mr Leslie's conscious decision not to audit or challenge the figures precluded recovery in unjust enrichment or for mistake. There was no fraud or misrepresentation, and the circumstances amounted to a waiver of the right to detailed inquiry.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Graham Leslie; Respondent/defendant: Farrar Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From First Instance Judgment (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Overpayment, Mistake, Waiver, Estoppel, Failure of Consideration
Contract Law Restitution Unjust Enrichment Overpayment Mistake Waiver Estoppel Failure of Consideration

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Leslie

Appellant/claimant

Farrar Construction Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From First Instance Judgment (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to recover overpayments of building costs made on five completed projects under the Framework Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in treating the completed developments as closed transactions, precluding recovery of overpayments
  3. 3 Whether the payments were made under a mistake, and if so, whether recovery is precluded by waiver, estoppel, or settlement

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because Mr Leslie, by agreeing to final payments on each completed development without investigation and with knowledge that actual build costs might differ from budgeted costs, voluntarily assumed the risk of overpayment. The parties treated each project as a closed transaction, and Mr Leslie's conscious decision not to audit or challenge the figures precluded recovery in unjust enrichment or for mistake. There was no fraud or misrepresentation, and the circumstances amounted to a waiver of the right to detailed inquiry.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; judgment for FCL in the sum of £139,428.16 stands.