Devoran Joinery Company Ltd v Perkins [2003] EWCA Civ 1241 (30 July 2003)

Devoran Joinery Company Ltd v Perkins [2003] EWCA Civ 1241 (30 July 2003)

The judge's reasoning and assessment of damages in relation to the upper bay window were flawed due to failure to address material evidence, reliance on unsatisfactory expert evidence, and lack of proper consideration of repair feasibility and cost. The judgment cannot stand regarding the upper bay window, and the issue must be remitted for retrial. The award for glazing defects was also based on inadequate expert evidence and must be varied.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1241
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Devoran Joinery Company Limited; Defendant/appellant: Perkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment set aside in relation to upper bay window; retrial ordered on that issue; award for glazing defects varied.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages, Expert Evidence, Remedies, Cost Assessment
Contract Construction Commercial Breach of Contract Damages Expert Evidence Remedies Cost Assessment

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devoran Joinery Company Limited

Claimant/respondent

Perkins

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in assessing damages for defects in windows and doors supplied and installed by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to address certain alleged defects, particularly general draughtiness in the upper bay window
  3. 3 Whether the judge wrongly preferred the evidence of one expert over another regarding repair feasibility and costings

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's reasoning and assessment of damages in relation to the upper bay window were flawed due to failure to address material evidence, reliance on unsatisfactory expert evidence, and lack of proper consideration of repair feasibility and cost. The judgment cannot stand regarding the upper bay window, and the issue must be remitted for retrial. The award for glazing defects was also based on inadequate expert evidence and must be varied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment set aside in relation to upper bay window; retrial ordered on that issue; award for glazing defects varied.

Orders

  • Judge's order in respect of counterclaim to be supplemented by 'plus VAT'.
  • Decision to award only £1,450 for upper bay window set aside; issue remitted for retrial before a different judge.