Great Eastern Hotel Company Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd & Anor [2005] EWHC 181 (TCC) (24 February 2005)

Great Eastern Hotel Company Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd & Anor [2005] EWHC 181 (TCC) (24 February 2005)

Laing's obligations under the Construction Management Agreement were not absolute but required the exercise of reasonable skill, care, and diligence. The delays to the project, particularly regarding the temporary roof, were caused by Laing's failure to properly manage and coordinate the Trade Contractor (TRAD) and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 181 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Great Eastern Hotel Company Ltd; Defendant: John Laing Construction Ltd; Defendant: Laing Construction PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Construction Management Agreements, Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Damages, Delay in Construction, Professional Negligence
Construction Law Contract Law Commercial Law Construction Management Agreements Breach of Contract Misrepresentation Damages Delay in Construction +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great Eastern Hotel Company Ltd

Claimant

John Laing Construction Ltd

Defendant

Laing Construction PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Laing breached its obligations under the Construction Management Agreement (CMA)
  2. 2 Whether Laing was liable for delays to the project and resulting losses
  3. 3 Whether GEH made actionable misrepresentations to Laing

Ratio Decidendi

Laing's obligations under the Construction Management Agreement were not absolute but required the exercise of reasonable skill, care, and diligence. The delays to the project, particularly regarding the temporary roof, were caused by Laing's failure to properly manage and coordinate the Trade Contractor (TRAD) and to take timely action to address design and erection issues. There was no actionable misrepresentation by GEH, as the indicative programme was clearly non-binding and Laing did not rely on it. Laing's counterclaim for misrepresentation failed, and GEH was entitled to damages for Laing's breaches.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Laing is liable to GEH for damages for breach of contract arising from project delays and mismanagement.
  • Laing's counterclaim and defence based on misrepresentation are dismissed.