Pickard Finlason Partnership Ltd v Lock & Anor [2014] EWHC 25 (TCC) (15 January 2014)

Pickard Finlason Partnership Ltd v Lock & Anor [2014] EWHC 25 (TCC) (15 January 2014)

The court found that PFP was not entitled to payment of the balance of its invoice because it failed to satisfy the condition precedent of establishing a firm and accurate cost post-planning permission, as required by the contract. PFP also failed to provide a feasibility report and adequate cost plan, and did not properly advise the Locks on the risks and buildability of the revised scheme. These breaches were sufficiently substantial to disentitle PFP to payment for the relevant work stages. The Locks were entitled to set-off and counterclaim for certain losses, but not all claimed losses were recoverable.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 25 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Pickard Finlason Partnership Limited; Defendant: Adele Lock; Defendant: Matthew Lock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed in substantial part; counterclaim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Architects' Duties, Fee Entitlement Under Professional Services Contract, Condition Precedent to Payment, Breach of Contract, Damages, Counterclaim for Losses, Professional Standard of Care
Contract Law Professional Negligence Construction Law Architects' Duties Fee Entitlement Under Professional Services Contract Condition Precedent to Payment Breach of Contract Damages +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pickard Finlason Partnership Limited

Claimant

Adele Lock

Defendant

Matthew Lock

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PFP was entitled to payment of its invoice for professional fees under the contract terms
  2. 2 Whether PFP failed to meet a condition precedent to payment by not establishing a firm and accurate cost post-planning permission
  3. 3 Whether PFP failed to perform its contractual duties with reasonable skill and care, particularly regarding feasibility, cost planning, and advice on risks

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that PFP was not entitled to payment of the balance of its invoice because it failed to satisfy the condition precedent of establishing a firm and accurate cost post-planning permission, as required by the contract. PFP also failed to provide a feasibility report and adequate cost plan, and did not properly advise the Locks on the risks and buildability of the revised scheme. These breaches were sufficiently substantial to disentitle PFP to payment for the relevant work stages. The Locks were entitled to set-off and counterclaim for certain losses, but not all claimed losses were recoverable.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed in substantial part; counterclaim allowed in part

Orders

  • PFP's claim for the balance of its invoice is dismissed
  • PFP's claims for incentive fee, stage three fees, loss of profits, costs, and interest are dismissed