Sykes & Anor v Packham (t/a Bathroom Specialist)

Sykes & Anor v Packham (t/a Bathroom Specialist)

The contract between the parties was not a fixed price or cost plus contract; there was an implied agreement to pay a reasonable price for the work done and materials supplied. The judge was entitled to assess a reasonable price on the available evidence without adjourning for further evidence, and the assessment was substantially fair. An arithmetical error in the award for sub-contractors was identified and should be corrected.

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 varied to correct calculation; otherwise, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Quantum Meruit, Pleadings, Case Management, Assessment of Reasonable Price
Contract Law Civil Procedure Building Contracts Quantum Meruit Pleadings Case Management Assessment of Reasonable Price

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
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 What was the true nature of the agreement between the parties?
  2. 2 Was the judge correct in proceeding to assess a reasonable price rather than adjourning?
  3. 3 Was the judge's assessment of a reasonable price justified on the evidence?

Ratio Decidendi

The contract between the parties was not a fixed price or cost plus contract; there was an implied agreement to pay a reasonable price for the work done and materials supplied. The judge was entitled to assess a reasonable price on the available evidence without adjourning for further evidence, and the assessment was substantially fair. An arithmetical error in the award for sub-contractors was identified and should be corrected.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed as to arithmetical error; judgment varied to correct calculation; otherwise, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Correct the figure for sub-contractors to £16,863.43 and apply a 15% profit margin (£2,529.51).
  • Reduce the sum for the respondent's own wages to 80% of hours (£11,893.60).