Devoran Joinery Company Ltd v Perkins

Devoran Joinery Company Ltd v Perkins

The trial judge erred in failing to address the pleaded issue of general draughtiness in the upper bay window and in preferring Mr Keyworth’s evidence on repairs and costs without proper foundation or testing, particularly after it became clear that his proposed method was not feasible. The judge’s award for glazing defects was not supported by the evidence. The appropriate course is to order a retrial on the question of the proper remedy and costs for the upper bay window, and to vary the sums awarded for glazing defects accordingly. VAT should be added to the counterclaim sums as conceded.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Devoran Joinery Company Limited; Defendant/appellant: Mr Perkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed in part; retrial ordered on specific issues
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages, Expert Evidence, Remedies for Defective Works
Contract Law Construction Law Breach of Contract Damages Expert Evidence Remedies for Defective Works

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devoran Joinery Company Limited

Claimant/respondent

Mr Perkins

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing damages for defective joinery works and glazing defects
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to address all pleaded defects, particularly general draughtiness in the upper bay window
  3. 3 Whether the judge was correct to prefer the evidence of Mr Keyworth over Mr Bussey on repair methodology and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in failing to address the pleaded issue of general draughtiness in the upper bay window and in preferring Mr Keyworth’s evidence on repairs and costs without proper foundation or testing, particularly after it became clear that his proposed method was not feasible. The judge’s award for glazing defects was not supported by the evidence. The appropriate course is to order a retrial on the question of the proper remedy and costs for the upper bay window, and to vary the sums awarded for glazing defects accordingly. VAT should be added to the counterclaim sums as conceded.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part; retrial ordered on specific issues

Orders

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