CJ Elvin Building Services Ltd v Noble & Anor [2003] EWHC 837 (TCC) (03 April 2003)

CJ Elvin Building Services Ltd v Noble & Anor [2003] EWHC 837 (TCC) (03 April 2003)

The Defendants were in repudiatory breach by failing to pay sums due; the Claimant was entitled to suspend work and did not repudiate the contract. The Claimant is entitled to payment of £40,016.52, being the value of works less deductions for defects and incomplete items.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 837 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: C J Elvin Building Services Limited; Defendant: Peter Noble; Defendant: Alexa Noble
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Building Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Repudiation, Quantum Meruit, Defective Works, Stage Payments
Contract Law Construction Law Building Contracts Repudiation Quantum Meruit Defective Works Stage Payments

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C J Elvin Building Services Limited

Claimant

Peter Noble

Defendant

Alexa Noble

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Building Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What sum was due to the Claimant for works and materials as at suspension?
  2. 2 Were there defects or incomplete works for which deductions should be made?
  3. 3 Did the Claimant repudiate the contract by suspending work?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants were in repudiatory breach by failing to pay sums due; the Claimant was entitled to suspend work and did not repudiate the contract. The Claimant is entitled to payment of £40,016.52, being the value of works less deductions for defects and incomplete items.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the Claimant £40,016.52 plus VAT as appropriate
  • Defendants' counterclaim dismissed