Pickard Finlason Partnership Ltd v Lock & Anor

Pickard Finlason Partnership Ltd v Lock & Anor

PFP was not entitled to payment of its invoice because it failed to satisfy contractual conditions precedent, including providing a proper feasibility report, cost estimates, and risk advice. These breaches were causative of the Locks' inability to secure funding and their exposure to liability for fees. The breaches were sufficiently serious to disentitle PFP to payment and entitled the Locks to a limited recovery for abortive costs. The claim was dismissed and judgment entered for the defendants on the counterclaim.

Parties
Claimant: Pickard Finlason Partnership Limited; Defendant: Adele Lock; Defendant: Matthew Lock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/professional Negligence) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for defendants on counterclaim
Legal Topics
Architects' Duties, Breach of Contract, Professional Fees, Causation, Damages, Repudiatory Breach, Feasibility Studies, Planning Permission, Cost Estimation, Ground Investigation, Buildability, Financial Viability
Contract Law Professional Negligence Construction Law Architects' Duties Breach of Contract Professional Fees Causation Damages +7 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pickard Finlason Partnership Limited

Claimant

Adele Lock

Defendant

Matthew Lock

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/professional Negligence) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PFP was entitled to payment of its invoice under the contract terms
  2. 2 Whether PFP breached its contractual and professional duties in failing to provide proper feasibility advice, cost estimates, and risk warnings
  3. 3 Whether PFP's breaches caused loss to the Locks and/or disentitled PFP to payment

Ratio Decidendi

PFP was not entitled to payment of its invoice because it failed to satisfy contractual conditions precedent, including providing a proper feasibility report, cost estimates, and risk advice. These breaches were causative of the Locks' inability to secure funding and their exposure to liability for fees. The breaches were sufficiently serious to disentitle PFP to payment and entitled the Locks to a limited recovery for abortive costs. The claim was dismissed and judgment entered for the defendants on the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for defendants on counterclaim

Orders

  • PFP's claim dismissed in its entirety
  • Judgment for the defendants (Locks) on their counterclaim in the sum of £1,675