Williams Tarr Construction Ltd v Anthony Roylance Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 2339 (TCC) (14 September 2018)

Williams Tarr Construction Ltd v Anthony Roylance Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 2339 (TCC) (14 September 2018)

The engagement in November 2010 was with the Second Defendant in his personal capacity, not the First Defendant company. The scope of the engagement was limited to the design of a drain behind the retaining wall, not the design or redesign of the wall itself. There was no express or implied term warranting that the retaining wall would be fit for purpose. The Second Defendant did not breach any contractual or tortious duty to the Claimant.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2339 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Williams Tarr Construction Limited; First Defendant: Anthony Roylance Limited; Second Defendant: Anthony Roylance
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 September 2018
Procedural Posture
TCC Trial Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Scope of Contractual Engagement, Implied Terms, Fit for Purpose Obligations, Personal Vs. Corporate Liability, Design Responsibility in Construction
Construction Law Contract Law Professional Negligence Scope of Contractual Engagement Implied Terms Fit for Purpose Obligations Personal Vs. Corporate Liability Design Responsibility in Construction

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Williams Tarr Construction Limited

Claimant

Anthony Roylance Limited

First Defendant

Anthony Roylance

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

TCC Trial Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who was contractually engaged by the Claimant: the First Defendant (company) or the Second Defendant (individual)?
  2. 2 What was the scope of the November 2010 engagement?
  3. 3 Was there a fit for purpose obligation regarding the retaining wall?

Ratio Decidendi

The engagement in November 2010 was with the Second Defendant in his personal capacity, not the First Defendant company. The scope of the engagement was limited to the design of a drain behind the retaining wall, not the design or redesign of the wall itself. There was no express or implied term warranting that the retaining wall would be fit for purpose. The Second Defendant did not breach any contractual or tortious duty to the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim against both Defendants is dismissed.
  • No damages or relief awarded to the Claimant.