Robinson v P E Jones (Contractors) Ltd [2010] EWHC 102 (TCC) (27 January 2010)

Robinson v P E Jones (Contractors) Ltd [2010] EWHC 102 (TCC) (27 January 2010)

A builder who contracts directly with a client to carry out building works may owe a concurrent duty of care in tort to avoid causing economic loss, where there is an assumption of responsibility arising from the contractual relationship. The existence of a contract for building works, with an implied obligation to exercise reasonable care and skill, is sufficient to found such a duty unless the contract expressly excludes it. In this case, the defendant owed the claimant a concurrent duty of care in tort. On limitation, the claimant did not have the requisite knowledge of the defect until 2004, so the claim is not statute-barred under s.14A of the Limitation Act 1980.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 102 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Mr J. A. Robinson; Defendant: P. E. Jones (Contractors) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (tcc) / Preliminary Issues Trial
Outcome
For the claimant on both preliminary issues.
Legal Topics
Concurrent Liability, Economic Loss, Limitation of Actions, Duty of Care, Building Contracts
Tort Law Contract Law Construction Law Concurrent Liability Economic Loss Limitation of Actions Duty of Care Building Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr J. A. Robinson

Claimant

P. E. Jones (Contractors) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tcc) / Preliminary Issues Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a builder who contracts with a client owes a concurrent duty of care in tort for economic loss
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's tort claim is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

A builder who contracts directly with a client to carry out building works may owe a concurrent duty of care in tort to avoid causing economic loss, where there is an assumption of responsibility arising from the contractual relationship. The existence of a contract for building works, with an implied obligation to exercise reasonable care and skill, is sufficient to found such a duty unless the contract expressly excludes it. In this case, the defendant owed the claimant a concurrent duty of care in tort. On limitation, the claimant did not have the requisite knowledge of the defect until 2004, so the claim is not statute-barred under s.14A of the Limitation Act 1980.

Court Disposition

For the claimant on both preliminary issues.

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant owed the claimant a concurrent duty of care in tort for the building works.
  • It is declared that the claimant's tort claim is not statute-barred under s.14A of the Limitation Act 1980.