Kingfisher Builders v Sear [2011] EWHC 1122 (TCC) (04 May 2011)

Kingfisher Builders v Sear [2011] EWHC 1122 (TCC) (04 May 2011)

The court found that the parties agreed lump sums of £38,400 for the demolition and rebuilding of the external walls and £1,600 for the spine wall, which included all necessary associated works. There was no agreement for a cost plus 10% uplift. Most alleged additional works were either included in these sums or not proven to be instructed by the defendant. Only certain specific items (e.g., studwork for TV, scalloped flashing) were found to be additional and compensable. The claimant's evidence was less credible than the defendant's, and the court preferred the defendant's contemporaneous records and testimony.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1122 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Kingfisher Builders; Defendant: Christopher Sear
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Construction Dispute / Judgment on Preliminary Issues of Liability and Valuation
Outcome
Claim largely dismissed on preliminary issues; only limited entitlement to payment for certain specific additional works.
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Variation of Contract, Quantum Meruit, Evidence and Credibility, Scope of Works, Payment Disputes
Contract Law Construction Law Building Contracts Variation of Contract Quantum Meruit Evidence and Credibility Scope of Works Payment Disputes

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kingfisher Builders

Claimant

Christopher Sear

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Construction Dispute / Judgment on Preliminary Issues of Liability and Valuation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was agreed between the parties regarding the scope and cost of demolition and rebuilding after discovery of clay-pot tile walls?
  2. 2 Is Kingfisher Builders entitled to further payment for alleged additional works?
  3. 3 Were certain works included in the agreed lump sums or are they additional?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the parties agreed lump sums of £38,400 for the demolition and rebuilding of the external walls and £1,600 for the spine wall, which included all necessary associated works. There was no agreement for a cost plus 10% uplift. Most alleged additional works were either included in these sums or not proven to be instructed by the defendant. Only certain specific items (e.g., studwork for TV, scalloped flashing) were found to be additional and compensable. The claimant's evidence was less credible than the defendant's, and the court preferred the defendant's contemporaneous records and testimony.

Court Disposition

Claim largely dismissed on preliminary issues; only limited entitlement to payment for certain specific additional works.

Orders

  • No further payment due for demolition and rebuilding of external and spine walls beyond agreed lump sums.
  • Claimant entitled to reasonable payment for specific additional works: studwork for TV, labour for sliding door frames, installation of scalloped flashing, and installation of fibreglass insulation supplied by defendant.