Lendlease Construction (Europe) Ltd v Aecom Ltd (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 2620 (TCC) (01 November 2023)

Lendlease Construction (Europe) Ltd v Aecom Ltd (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 2620 (TCC) (01 November 2023)

The court held that Aecom owed contractual duties of reasonable skill, care and diligence in the design of mechanical and electrical services and the fire safety strategy under the Consultancy Agreement, but not a strict obligation to achieve a particular result. The Consultancy Agreement was not executed as a deed, so the limitation period was 6 years, rendering most of Lendlease's claims statute-barred. The 2012 Settlement Agreement did not bar claims for defects not reasonably known at the time. Aecom was not liable for certain defects arising from Lendlease's own instructions or from sub-contractor actions outside Aecom's control. Quantum was determined accordingly.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2620 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Lendlease Construction (Europe) Limited; Defendant: AECOM Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2023
Procedural Posture
TCC Commercial Construction Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim largely dismissed as statute-barred; limited recovery for certain defects not time-barred or excluded by settlement.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Breach of Contract, Consultancy Agreements, Design Responsibility, Fire Safety Compliance, Indemnity and Contribution, Settlement Agreements
Construction Law Contract Law Professional Negligence Limitation Periods Breach of Contract Consultancy Agreements Design Responsibility Fire Safety Compliance +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lendlease Construction (Europe) Limited

Claimant

AECOM Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

TCC Commercial Construction Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Nature and scope of Aecom's contractual obligations under the Consultancy Agreement
  2. 2 Whether Aecom was in breach of contract for design and fire safety strategy defects
  3. 3 Whether Lendlease's claims are statute-barred by limitation periods

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Aecom owed contractual duties of reasonable skill, care and diligence in the design of mechanical and electrical services and the fire safety strategy under the Consultancy Agreement, but not a strict obligation to achieve a particular result. The Consultancy Agreement was not executed as a deed, so the limitation period was 6 years, rendering most of Lendlease's claims statute-barred. The 2012 Settlement Agreement did not bar claims for defects not reasonably known at the time. Aecom was not liable for certain defects arising from Lendlease's own instructions or from sub-contractor actions outside Aecom's control. Quantum was determined accordingly.

Court Disposition

Claim largely dismissed as statute-barred; limited recovery for certain defects not time-barred or excluded by settlement.

Orders

  • Lendlease's claim against Aecom dismissed except for limited heads of loss relating to defects not statute-barred.
  • No order for indemnity in respect of the majority of sums paid to Project Co and Engie.