Kingfisher Builders v Sear

Kingfisher Builders v Sear

The court found that the parties agreed lump sums of £38,400 and £1,600 for all necessary demolition and rebuilding of the external and spine walls, including all associated works, and that no agreement existed for a 10% uplift or for cost plus 10%. Additional claims for payment for these works were therefore dismissed. Only certain specific items, such as studwork for a flat TV, sliding door frames, fibreglass insulation, concrete oversite, and scalloped flashing, were found to be additional work entitling Kingfisher Builders to further payment, subject to quantum. Other claims for additional payment were rejected as being included in the lump sum or not instructed by Mr Sear.

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 Sums Paid
Outcome
Partial judgment for claimant on limited items; majority of claims dismissed; proceedings stayed for parties to resolve remaining quantum issues.
Legal Topics
Building Contract Variations, Quantum Meruit, Contract Interpretation, Additional Works, Payment Disputes
Contract Law Construction Law Building Contract Variations Quantum Meruit Contract Interpretation Additional 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 Sums Paid

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was agreed between the parties after the discovery of clay-pot tiles regarding scope and cost of necessary work?
  2. 2 Is Kingfisher Builders entitled to further payment for alleged additional works?
  3. 3 Were certain works included in the lump sum or were they variations?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the parties agreed lump sums of £38,400 and £1,600 for all necessary demolition and rebuilding of the external and spine walls, including all associated works, and that no agreement existed for a 10% uplift or for cost plus 10%. Additional claims for payment for these works were therefore dismissed. Only certain specific items, such as studwork for a flat TV, sliding door frames, fibreglass insulation, concrete oversite, and scalloped flashing, were found to be additional work entitling Kingfisher Builders to further payment, subject to quantum. Other claims for additional payment were rejected as being included in the lump sum or not instructed by Mr Sear.

Court Disposition

Partial judgment for claimant on limited items; majority of claims dismissed; proceedings stayed for parties to resolve remaining quantum issues.

Orders

  • Claims for further payment for demolition and rebuilding of walls dismissed as included in agreed lump sums.
  • Kingfisher Builders entitled to payment for certain additional works (studwork for flat TV, sliding door frames, fibreglass insulation, concrete oversite, scalloped flashing), subject to quantum to be determined.