Costain Ltd v Charles Haswell & Partners Ltd

Costain Ltd v Charles Haswell & Partners Ltd

A binding contract existed between Costain and Haswell by 3 October 2002, either by express agreement or by conduct. Haswell breached its duty of care by misinterpreting site investigation data, failing to account for soil variability, and negligently recommending a pre-loading ground treatment scheme inappropriate for the site, without adequate warnings or design documentation. Clause 7.4 imposed strict liability only for works incorporated into the permanent works, not for the abandoned surcharge scheme. The negligent advice caused Costain to incur additional costs, but Costain failed to prove entitlement to most prolongation and third-party settlement costs due to lack of evidence and...

Parties
Claimant: Costain Limited; Defendant: Charles Haswell & Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/negligence) / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant in part; damages awarded for direct additional costs and piling only; most other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Strict Liability in Consultancy Agreements, Professional Duty of Care, Damages for Breach of Contract, Causation and Quantum of Damages, Double Recovery, Costs Orders
Contract Law Professional Negligence Construction Law Formation of Contract Strict Liability in Consultancy Agreements Professional Duty of Care Damages for Breach of Contract Causation and Quantum of 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Costain Limited

Claimant

Charles Haswell & Partners Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/negligence) / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract existed between Costain and Haswell for consultancy services
  2. 2 Whether Haswell owed and breached a duty of care in its design recommendations
  3. 3 Whether Clause 7.4 of the Consultancy Agreement imposed strict liability

Ratio Decidendi

A binding contract existed between Costain and Haswell by 3 October 2002, either by express agreement or by conduct. Haswell breached its duty of care by misinterpreting site investigation data, failing to account for soil variability, and negligently recommending a pre-loading ground treatment scheme inappropriate for the site, without adequate warnings or design documentation. Clause 7.4 imposed strict liability only for works incorporated into the permanent works, not for the abandoned surcharge scheme. The negligent advice caused Costain to incur additional costs, but Costain failed to prove entitlement to most prolongation and third-party settlement costs due to lack of evidence and...

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant in part; damages awarded for direct additional costs and piling only; most other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Haswell to pay Costain £163,478.51 in damages plus interest at 0.5% below base rate from 20 November 2002, with a 50% reduction for 12 months of unreasonable delay.
  • Haswell to pay 38.75% of Costain’s costs, assessed on the standard basis, plus interest from 1 June 2008.