Sykes & Anor v Packham (t/a Bathroom Specialist) [2011] EWCA Civ 608 (18 May 2011)

Sykes & Anor v Packham (t/a Bathroom Specialist) [2011] EWCA Civ 608 (18 May 2011)

The contract was neither fixed price nor cost plus; in the absence of express agreement, the law implies a term to pay a reasonable price. The judge was entitled to assess the reasonable price on the evidence available, applying rough justice where necessary, and was not required to adjourn for further evidence. The judge's approach to profit margins was adjusted to 15% for consistency and fairness. An arithmetical error in the sum for sub-contractors was corrected on appeal.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 608
Parties
Appellants: Sykes & Anr; Respondent: Packham T/A Bathroom Specialist
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed as to arithmetical error; judgment sum recalculated.
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Quantum Meruit, Case Management, Assessment of Reasonable Price, Pleadings and Amendments
Contract Law Civil Procedure Building Contracts Quantum Meruit Case Management Assessment of Reasonable Price Pleadings and Amendments

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sykes & Anr

Appellants

Packham T/A Bathroom Specialist

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract was fixed price, cost plus, or for a reasonable price
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in case management by not adjourning for further evidence
  3. 3 Whether the assessment of a reasonable price was supported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was neither fixed price nor cost plus; in the absence of express agreement, the law implies a term to pay a reasonable price. The judge was entitled to assess the reasonable price on the evidence available, applying rough justice where necessary, and was not required to adjourn for further evidence. The judge's approach to profit margins was adjusted to 15% for consistency and fairness. An arithmetical error in the sum for sub-contractors was corrected on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed as to arithmetical error; judgment sum recalculated.

Orders

  • Corrected sum for sub-contractors to £16,863.43
  • Profit margin on wages and sub-contractors set at 15%