Cunningham & Ors v Collett & Farmer

Cunningham & Ors v Collett & Farmer

The defendants were not negligent or in breach of contract in their advice or conduct regarding the tender process, choice of contract form, or the issuance and administration of the letter of intent. The principal cause of project delay and loss was the claimants' own failure, particularly Mr Cunningham's, to agree the escrow account terms and respond promptly, which led to the breakdown with the contractor. Even if any breach by the defendants were established, no recoverable loss was caused thereby. The defendants were entitled to suspend their services for non-payment and recover their outstanding fees.

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
Civil (construction/professional Negligence) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Architects' Duties, Letters of Intent, Causation, Damages, Contract Formation, Tendering Process, Suspension of Services
Construction Law Professional Negligence Contract Law Architects' Duties Letters of Intent Causation Damages Contract Formation +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Cunningham

Claimant

Catherine Good

Claimant

Gelande Corporation Ltd

Claimant

Collett and Farmer

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction/professional Negligence) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants (architects) were negligent or in breach of contract in their advice and conduct prior to and after the issuance of a letter of intent for building works.
  2. 2 Whether the claimants suffered recoverable loss as a result of any alleged breach or negligence by the defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were entitled to suspend their services and recover outstanding fees.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were not negligent or in breach of contract in their advice or conduct regarding the tender process, choice of contract form, or the issuance and administration of the letter of intent. The principal cause of project delay and loss was the claimants' own failure, particularly Mr Cunningham's, to agree the escrow account terms and respond promptly, which led to the breakdown with the contractor. Even if any breach by the defendants were established, no recoverable loss was caused thereby. The defendants were entitled to suspend their services for non-payment and recover their outstanding fees.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Claimants' claims dismissed in their entirety.
  • Judgment for the defendants on their counterclaim for outstanding fees in the sum of £16,464.60 plus interest.