Lloyds Bank Plc v McBains Cooper Consulting Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 452 (15 March 2018)

Lloyds Bank Plc v McBains Cooper Consulting Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 452 (15 March 2018)

McBains was liable only for losses directly caused by its negligent failure to inform the bank about and recommend against payments for third floor works, not for all subsequent losses. The bank's own knowledge and conduct meant it bore the majority of responsibility. Damages were limited to sums paid for the third floor (£259,792), reduced by two-thirds for contributory negligence, making McBains liable for £86,597.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 452
Parties
Respondent (claimant): Lloyds Bank PLC; Appellant (defendant): McBains Cooper Consulting Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Technology & Construction Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced and apportionment of responsibility reversed.
Legal Topics
Scope of Duty of Care, Assessment of Damages, Contributory Negligence, Project Monitoring, Causation, Information Vs Advice Liability
Contract Law Professional Negligence Banking Law Scope of Duty of Care Assessment of Damages Contributory Negligence Project Monitoring Causation +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds Bank PLC

Respondent (claimant)

McBains Cooper Consulting Ltd

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Technology & Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the scope of a project monitor's duty to a lender under a monitoring contract?
  2. 2 Is the project monitor liable for all losses after breach or only those directly caused by negligent information/recommendation?
  3. 3 How should damages and contributory negligence be apportioned in this context?

Ratio Decidendi

McBains was liable only for losses directly caused by its negligent failure to inform the bank about and recommend against payments for third floor works, not for all subsequent losses. The bank's own knowledge and conduct meant it bore the majority of responsibility. Damages were limited to sums paid for the third floor (£259,792), reduced by two-thirds for contributory negligence, making McBains liable for £86,597.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced and apportionment of responsibility reversed.

Orders

  • Damages limited to £259,792 for third floor payments.
  • McBains' liability reduced to £86,597 after apportionment (one-third).