Steuerman v Dampcoursing Ltd [2002] EWHC 939 (TCC) (16 May 2002)

Steuerman v Dampcoursing Ltd [2002] EWHC 939 (TCC) (16 May 2002)

The defendant failed to ensure the substrate had adequate falls to the drainage outlets and used improper workmanship (including butt joints and failure to address depressions), breaching both express and implied contractual terms and statutory duty, causing the system to fail and entitling the claimant to recover the reasonable cost of remedial works and associated losses.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 939 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Jean Louis Steuerman; Defendant: Dampcoursing Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Defective Workmanship, Implied Terms, Guarantees and Warranties, Damages for Breach of Contract, Defective Premises Act 1972
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Defective Workmanship Implied Terms Guarantees and Warranties Damages for Breach of Contract Defective Premises Act 1972

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Louis Steuerman

Claimant

Dampcoursing Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached contract and/or statutory duty in the installation of a damp proofing system
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for the cost of remedial works and consequential losses

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to ensure the substrate had adequate falls to the drainage outlets and used improper workmanship (including butt joints and failure to address depressions), breaching both express and implied contractual terms and statutory duty, causing the system to fail and entitling the claimant to recover the reasonable cost of remedial works and associated losses.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £47,052.57 in damages.