John Sisk and Son Limited v Capital & Centric (Rose) Limited

On proper interpretation of the contract, specifically clause 2.42 and item two of the contract clarifications, the risk of unsuitability of existing structures, including their ability to support or facilitate the proposed works, lies solely with C&C. Pre-contractual negotiations are inadmissible for contract interpretation.

Parties: Claimant: John Sisk and Son Limited; Defendant: Capital & Centric (Rose) Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 14 March 2025
Procedural Posture: Part 8 Claim / Judgment on Declaratory Relief
Outcome: Declarations granted in favour of Sisk; risk of existing structures lies with C&C.
Legal Topics: Contract Interpretation, Risk Allocation, Declaratory Relief, Insurance Provisions, Consultant Warranties

Construction Law Contract Law Contract Interpretation Risk Allocation Declaratory Relief Insurance Provisions Consultant Warranties

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 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

John Sisk and Son Limited

Claimant

Capital & Centric (Rose) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment on Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

1 Proper construction of clarification clause regarding risk allocation for existing structures
2 Contractual responsibility for suitability of existing structures
3 Admissibility of pre-contractual negotiations in contract interpretation

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favour of Sisk; risk of existing structures lies with C&C.

Orders

Declarations as sought by Sisk to reflect determination; precise terms and consequential matters to be addressed upon further submissions.