Thomas & Anor v Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1134 (TCC) (09 May 2019)

Thomas & Anor v Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1134 (TCC) (09 May 2019)

Taylor Wimpey did not owe the claimants a duty of care in tort for the alleged loss and damage, as the claim was for pure economic loss and Lord Bridge's qualification in Murphy v Brentwood DC does not represent the law. The claims against Taylor Wimpey in misrepresentation and under the Defective Premises Act 1972 were statute-barred. The log retaining walls were not necessary for the structural stability of the houses or garages within the meaning of the NHBC Buildmark Warranty. No non-compliance with Building Regulations was pleaded, and the log retaining walls were not controlled under the Building Regulations at the time of construction.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1134 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Simon Thomas; Claimant: Sian Thomas; First Defendant: Taylor Wimpey Developments Limited; Second Defendant: National House Building Council; Third Defendant: Gordon A. Battrick & Co. Solicitors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Technology and Construction Court / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
All preliminary issues determined in favour of the defendants.
Legal Topics
Pure Economic Loss, Negligence, Defective Premises Act 1972, Misrepresentation, Limitation of Actions, Interpretation of Insurance Contracts
Tort Law Contract Law Construction Law Insurance Law Pure Economic Loss Negligence Defective Premises Act 1972 Misrepresentation +2 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Thomas

Claimant

Sian Thomas

Claimant

Taylor Wimpey Developments Limited

First Defendant

National House Building Council

Second Defendant

Gordon A. Battrick & Co. Solicitors

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Technology and Construction Court / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Taylor Wimpey owed a duty of care in tort to the claimants for the alleged loss and damage (Issue 1)
  2. 2 Whether the claims against Taylor Wimpey in misrepresentation and under the Defective Premises Act 1972 are statute-barred (Issue 2)
  3. 3 Whether the log retaining walls are necessary for the structural stability of the houses or garages under the NHBC Buildmark Warranty (Issue 3)

Ratio Decidendi

Taylor Wimpey did not owe the claimants a duty of care in tort for the alleged loss and damage, as the claim was for pure economic loss and Lord Bridge's qualification in Murphy v Brentwood DC does not represent the law. The claims against Taylor Wimpey in misrepresentation and under the Defective Premises Act 1972 were statute-barred. The log retaining walls were not necessary for the structural stability of the houses or garages within the meaning of the NHBC Buildmark Warranty. No non-compliance with Building Regulations was pleaded, and the log retaining walls were not controlled under the Building Regulations at the time of construction.

Court Disposition

All preliminary issues determined in favour of the defendants.

Orders

  • Declaration that Taylor Wimpey did not owe the pleaded duty of care in tort to the claimants for the alleged loss and damage (Issue 1: No)
  • Declaration that the claims against Taylor Wimpey in misrepresentation and under the Defective Premises Act 1972 are statute-barred (Issue 2: Yes)