STEPHEN HIRST v MICHAEL PAUL DUNBAR

STEPHEN HIRST v MICHAEL PAUL DUNBAR

The Claimants were not engaged by the Defendants to perform the works; they acted at their own risk in anticipation of purchasing the Site. No contract or quantum meruit entitlement arose. Even if a contract existed, the claim is statute-barred as the cause of action accrued upon completion of the works in December 2012, well before proceedings commenced.

Parties
First Claimant: Stephen Hirst; Second Claimant: Mountain Development Company Limited; First Defendant: Michael Paul Dunbar; Second Defendant: MD Construction (Leeds) Limited; Third Defendant: MD Construction (Bradford) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Oral Contract, Quantum Meruit, Statute of Limitations, Construction Contract, Scheme for Construction Contracts, Housing Grants, Construction, And Regeneration Act 1996
Contract Law Construction Law Oral Contract Quantum Meruit Statute of Limitations Construction Contract Scheme for Construction Contracts Housing Grants, Construction, and Regeneration Act 1996

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

Parties

Stephen Hirst

First Claimant

Mountain Development Company Limited

Second Claimant

Michael Paul Dunbar

First Defendant

MD Construction (Leeds) Limited

Second Defendant

MD Construction (Bradford) Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants were engaged by the Defendants to perform works at the Site
  2. 2 Whether the claim is statute-barred
  3. 3 If entitled, what sum is due to the Claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants were not engaged by the Defendants to perform the works; they acted at their own risk in anticipation of purchasing the Site. No contract or quantum meruit entitlement arose. Even if a contract existed, the claim is statute-barred as the cause of action accrued upon completion of the works in December 2012, well before proceedings commenced.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed