J. JARVIS AND SONS LTD. v. CASTLE WHARF DEVELOPMENTS LTD. GLEEDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. FRANKLIN ELLIS ARCHITECTS LTD. [2001] EWCA Civ 19 (19th January, 2001)

J. JARVIS AND SONS LTD. v. CASTLE WHARF DEVELOPMENTS LTD. GLEEDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. FRANKLIN ELLIS ARCHITECTS LTD. [2001] EWCA Civ 19 (19th January, 2001)

The court held that, even assuming a duty of care and breach by Gleeds, Jarvis's reliance on any misstatements did not extend beyond the point at which Jarvis became aware of the true planning position. The factual basis for continued reliance and causation of loss was not established. The appeal was allowed in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 19
Parties
Respondent: Jarvis and Sons Ltd.; 1st Appellant: Castle Wharf Developments Ltd.; 2nd Appellant: Gleeds Management Services Ltd.; 3rd Appellant: Franklin Ellis Architects Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Technology and Construction Court on Preliminary Issues of Liability
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; findings of liability against Gleeds and Franklin Ellis not sustained as originally determined.
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Negligent Misstatement, Breach of Contract, Restitution, Duty of Care, Concurrent Liability, Planning Permission, Contributory Negligence
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Quantum Meruit Negligent Misstatement Breach of Contract Restitution +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jarvis and Sons Ltd.

Respondent

Castle Wharf Developments Ltd.

1st Appellant

Gleeds Management Services Ltd.

2nd Appellant

Franklin Ellis Architects Ltd.

3rd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Technology and Construction Court on Preliminary Issues of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants owed Jarvis a duty of care in tort for negligent misstatement
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of contract by Franklin Ellis
  3. 3 Whether Jarvis was entitled to quantum meruit or restitution

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, even assuming a duty of care and breach by Gleeds, Jarvis's reliance on any misstatements did not extend beyond the point at which Jarvis became aware of the true planning position. The factual basis for continued reliance and causation of loss was not established. The appeal was allowed in part, and the findings of liability against Gleeds and Franklin Ellis were not sustained as originally determined by the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; findings of liability against Gleeds and Franklin Ellis not sustained as originally determined.

Orders

  • Order of the Technology and Construction Court set aside in respect of liability of Gleeds and Franklin Ellis.
  • No order for retrial.