cas case e law u law upda pdate te Russell-Cooke LLP Solicitors - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

cas case e law u law upda pdate te
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

cas case e law u law upda pdate te Russell-Cooke LLP Solicitors - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Le Lega gal l issu issues es a and nd cas case e law u law upda pdate te Russell-Cooke LLP Solicitors 23 rd April 2015 Paul Greatholder Mark Fletcher Mary Hodgson Dil Dilap apidatio idations ns the the la law Main legal


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Russell-Cooke LLP Solicitors 23rd April 2015 Paul Greatholder Mark Fletcher Mary Hodgson

Le Lega gal l issu issues es a and nd cas case e law u law upda pdate te

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Dil Dilap apidatio idations ns – the the la law

Main legal developments of substantive law over the last twelve months

slide-3
SLIDE 3

[this slide has been left intentionally blank]

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Di Dilapidations lapidations – so so what else has what else has happened? happened?

  • Background Court developments
  • Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd (2013)
  • Denton v TH White Limited (2014)
  • 78th update of the Civil Procedure Rules
  • Impact of Coventry v Lawrence
  • Dilapidations protocol
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Courtw Courtwell ell v v Gree Greenc ncore

  • re PF

PF (UK) Limited (UK) Limited

  • Landlord makes dilaps claim for £1.7m at expiry of

tenant’s lease

  • Tenants counter with ‘no loss’ defence
  • Breakdown in relationship at all levels between parties
  • Offers made and rejected – settlement shortly before

trial

  • Who pays the costs? What lessons to learn?
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Th The e mag magic word ic words? s?

  • “Without prejudice”
  • “Subject to contract”
  • “Part 36”
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Adj Adjudication: udication: From pru From pruning to ch ning to cherry erry-picking picking; ; from smas from smash and g h and grabs to wind rabs to windfalls falls

  • Adjudication
  • Fast track process
  • 28 days (subject to extension)
  • Statutory right
  • Interim binding: “Pay now, argue later”
  • Enforced by the Technology and Construction Court

(TCC)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Val Valuation: uation: From pru From pruning to ch ning to cherry erry-picking picking

  • St Austell Printing Company Ltd v Dawnus

Construction Holdings Ltd [2015] EWHC 96 (TCC)

  • Interim application for £2.3m, £900,000 of measured

work

  • Adjudication for the measured value of 115 specific

changes and variations

  • Sought payment, rather than a declaration as to

entitlement

  • Adjudicator ordered payment of c.£418,000 plus fees
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Val Valuation: uation: From pru From pruning to ch ning to cherry erry-picking picking

  • Jurisdiction challenge failed:
  • Dispute had crystallised
  • Cherry-picking not only permissible, but to be

encouraged

  • Decision reflected existing liability to pay
  • Not prevented from defending claim or raising their own

cross-claim by way of set-off

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Notices: Notices: Sma Smash sh and and grabs grabs

  • Galliford Try Building Ltd v Estura Ltd [2015] EWHC

412 (TCC)

  • No notice, no defence
  • Cannot challenge valuation at date of application: ISG

Construction Ltd v Seevic College [2014] EWHC 4007 (TCC)

  • Not lose ability to challenge in the future
  • Summary judgment for £4.075m
  • Overpayment can be put right on future applications or

final account

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Notices: Notices: Sma Smash sh and and grabs grabs

  • Partial stay of enforcement:
  • Irreparable prejudice
  • “very unusual circumstances”
  • “facts of this case as being exceptional”
  • “those in the industry should take note…appropriate
  • nly in rare cases”
  • “experience shows that loss and expense claims are

frequently significantly overvalued”

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Conclusion Conclusion

  • Selectivity
  • Consider the broader context
  • Not just about “winning”
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Pro Profess fessiona ional l Neg Negligen ligence ce

  • Duty of Care
  • Standard/Scope of Duty
  • Breach of Duty
  • Causation & Loss
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Duty Duty of Care

  • f Care
  • Breach of Contract and/or Negligence
  • Platform Funding v Bank of Scotland [2008]
  • At least concurrent liability
  • Negligence could be wider, if advice given which is
  • utside scope of retainer
  • Goldswain & Another v Beltec Ltd [2015]
  • Duty to Third Parties (not your client)
  • Scullion –v- Bank of Scotland [2011]
  • Freemont (Denbigh) Ltd v Knight Frank LLP [2014]
slide-15
SLIDE 15

Sta Stand ndard ard of Duty

  • f Duty
  • Ordinarily skilled man/reasonably competent surveyor
  • RICS handbook
  • MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd v Haase Enviromental

Consulting GmbH [2015]

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Breach of Duty Breach of Duty

  • Failure to follow instructions to standard of reasonably

competent surveyor

  • Limitations – extent of inspection/exclusions
  • Follow the trail – timber defects /roof defects

/subsidence

  • Margin of error in valuations
  • Idea of a range of non-negligent valuations
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Caus Causation ation and and Los Loss

  • Did advice play a real and substantial part in decision

to enter into transaction? (But For...)

  • SAAMCo [1996]
  • Over-valuation, responsible for the difference between

the valuation as stated and the accurate value at that time

  • Not responsible for fall in property prices
  • Tiuta International Ltd (in Liquidation) v de Villiers

Chartered Surveyors Ltd [2015]

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Contact Contact Details Details

Paul Greatholder Partner 020 7440 4824 Paul.Greatholder@russell-cooke.co.uk Mark Fletcher Solicitor 020 8394 6466 Mark.Fletcher@russell-cooke.co.uk Mary Hodgson Solicitor 020 8394 6402 Mary.Hodgson@russell-cooke.co.uk