Robinson v P.E.Jones (Contractors) Ltd

Robinson v P.E.Jones (Contractors) Ltd

The builder did not owe a concurrent duty of care in tort to the claimant for pure economic loss arising from defects in the house, as there was no assumption of responsibility beyond the contract, and the exclusion clauses limiting liability to that under the NHBC agreement were reasonable under UCTA and effective to exclude tortious liability. The claim in contract was statute-barred, and the law does not impose tortious duties co-extensive with contractual obligations in this context.

Parties
Appellant: James Andrew Robinson; Respondent: P. E. Jones (Contractors) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Concurrent Liability, Economic Loss, Exclusion Clauses, Unfair Contract Terms Act (ucta), Limitation of Actions
Contract Law Tort Law Construction Law Concurrent Liability Economic Loss Exclusion Clauses Unfair Contract Terms Act (ucta) Limitation of Actions

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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Andrew Robinson

Appellant

P. E. Jones (Contractors) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the builder owed a concurrent duty of care in tort to the purchaser for economic loss arising from defects in the house
  2. 2 Whether contractual exclusion clauses satisfied the reasonableness test under UCTA and excluded tortious liability
  3. 3 Whether the claim in contract was statute-barred under the Limitation Act

Ratio Decidendi

The builder did not owe a concurrent duty of care in tort to the claimant for pure economic loss arising from defects in the house, as there was no assumption of responsibility beyond the contract, and the exclusion clauses limiting liability to that under the NHBC agreement were reasonable under UCTA and effective to exclude tortious liability. The claim in contract was statute-barred, and the law does not impose tortious duties co-extensive with contractual obligations in this context.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the trial judge's decision stands.