AJ Building and Plastering Ltd v Turner & Ors

AJ Building and Plastering Ltd v Turner & Ors

The mandates did not impose a general obligation on the defendants to pay the claimant for the insured works; their liability was limited to the policy excess and any additional works not covered by insurance. The mandates, when properly construed in the context of consumer contracts and the factual background, did not create a direct payment obligation for the full cost of the works. In Mrs Munday’s case, the contract was unenforceable for failure to provide notice of the right to cancel as required by the 2008 Regulations.

Parties
Claimant: A. J. Building and Plastering Limited; Defendant: Samantha Turner; Defendant: Sheila Munday; Defendant: Martin Dalling
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Consumer Contracts, Liability for Payment Under Mandate, Application of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer’s Home Regulations 2008
Contract Law Consumer Protection Interpretation of Consumer Contracts Liability for Payment Under Mandate Application of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer’s Home Regulations 2008

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. J. Building and Plastering Limited

Claimant

Samantha Turner

Defendant

Sheila Munday

Defendant

Martin Dalling

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mandates signed by the defendants created a direct contractual obligation to pay the claimant for works carried out under insurance claims
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of the mandates in the context of consumer contracts
  3. 3 Application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008

Ratio Decidendi

The mandates did not impose a general obligation on the defendants to pay the claimant for the insured works; their liability was limited to the policy excess and any additional works not covered by insurance. The mandates, when properly construed in the context of consumer contracts and the factual background, did not create a direct payment obligation for the full cost of the works. In Mrs Munday’s case, the contract was unenforceable for failure to provide notice of the right to cancel as required by the 2008 Regulations.

Court Disposition

claims dismissed