Cunningham & Ors v Collett & Farmer [2006] EWHC 1771 (TCC) (13 July 2006)

Cunningham & Ors v Collett & Farmer [2006] EWHC 1771 (TCC) (13 July 2006)

The claimants failed to prove that the defendants breached their contractual or professional duties or that any such breach caused recoverable loss. The advice regarding contract form, tender process, and letter of intent was reasonable and consistent with industry practice. No binding contract was entered based on the defendants' advice, and subsequent losses were not causally linked to their conduct.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1771 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Robert Cunningham; Claimant: Catherine Good; Claimant: Gelande Corporation Ltd; Defendant: Collett and Farmer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Breach of Contract / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; defendants' counterclaim for fees upheld.
Legal Topics
Architects' Duties, Letters of Intent, Tender Process, Causation, Damages, Escrow Agreements
Construction Law Professional Negligence Contract Law Architects' Duties Letters of Intent Tender Process Causation Damages +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Cunningham

Claimant

Catherine Good

Claimant

Gelande Corporation Ltd

Claimant

Collett and Farmer

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Breach of Contract / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants breached contract and/or were negligent in advice and conduct as architects
  2. 2 Whether defendants' advice regarding letter of intent was negligent
  3. 3 Whether insufficient tenderers or insufficient design caused loss

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove that the defendants breached their contractual or professional duties or that any such breach caused recoverable loss. The advice regarding contract form, tender process, and letter of intent was reasonable and consistent with industry practice. No binding contract was entered based on the defendants' advice, and subsequent losses were not causally linked to their conduct.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; defendants' counterclaim for fees upheld.

Orders

  • Claimants' claims for damages against defendants dismissed.
  • Claimants ordered to pay defendants' outstanding fees as previously adjudicated (£21,464.60).