Mayhaven Healthcare Ltd v Bothma & Anor (t/a DAB Builders)

Mayhaven Healthcare Ltd v Bothma & Anor (t/a DAB Builders)

The arbitrator did not err in law regarding repudiatory breach, loss of profits for YPD occupancy or Phase 2, or the test for remedial works versus demolition/rebuild. However, the arbitrator erred in law by holding that implied approval by the contract administrator could relieve the contractor of liability for defective works; such implied approval does not excuse non-compliance with contract drawings.

Parties
Claimant: Mayhaven Healthcare Limited; Defendant: David Bothma (Trading as DAB Builders); Defendant: Teresa Bothma (Trading as DAB Builders)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on questions 1, 2(a), 2(b), 3, and 5; appeal allowed on question 4; matter remitted to arbitrator on question 4.
Legal Topics
Repudiatory Breach, Damages for Delay, Loss of Profits, Contract Administrator's Approval, Remedies for Defective Works
Construction Law Contract Law Arbitration Repudiatory Breach Damages for Delay Loss of Profits Contract Administrator's Approval Remedies for Defective Works

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayhaven Healthcare Limited

Claimant

David Bothma (Trading as DAB Builders)

Defendant

Teresa Bothma (Trading as DAB Builders)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether wrongful suspension of works by contractor amounts to repudiatory breach
  2. 2 Assessment of damages for loss of profits under Hadley v Baxendale
  3. 3 Recoverability of loss of profits for Phase 2 delay

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator did not err in law regarding repudiatory breach, loss of profits for YPD occupancy or Phase 2, or the test for remedial works versus demolition/rebuild. However, the arbitrator erred in law by holding that implied approval by the contract administrator could relieve the contractor of liability for defective works; such implied approval does not excuse non-compliance with contract drawings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on questions 1, 2(a), 2(b), 3, and 5; appeal allowed on question 4; matter remitted to arbitrator on question 4.

Orders

  • Appeal on questions 1, 2(a), 2(b), 3, and 5 dismissed.
  • Appeal on question 4 allowed.