UK: 2011 Construction Case Law Summary

Last Updated: 20 January 2012
Article by Suzanne Reeves

There were a number of important decisions made in the Courts in 2011. Below is a selection of cases that may affect our clients and contacts within the construction and property sectors:

Costello and another v MacDonald and others [2011] EWCA Civ 930

Unjust enrichment and SPVs: The building contractor in this case had entered into a building contract with an SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle company). This SPV had no assets of its own and the sole shareholders were Mr and Mrs Costello. When the SPV defaulted on payment the contractor sought restitution from the Costellos on the grounds of unfair enrichment (as the Costellos had benefitted from the contractor's works as owners of the land and should therefore pay). The contractor's claim was rejected. The contractor had voluntarily contracted with the SPV, not the Costellos, and had therefore accepted the risks of the SPV not being able to pay. The contractor could have protected itself by asking for a guarantee from the Costellos. This case highlights the importance to contractors to carry out due diligence on their employers and ask for a guarantee if necessary.

Fernhill Properties (Northern Ireland) Ltd v Mulgrew [2010] NICh20

Penalties: Although this was a Northern Irish decision it is an interesting one for English construction law practitioners to consider. The Judge in this case held that a contractual interest rate of 15% between a property developer and a buyer was unenforceable because it was a penalty designed to deter a purchaser from defaulting on completion, rather than a genuine pre-estimate of the developer's loss. The Court of Appeal in England has previously held in Taiwan Scott v Masters Golf that a contractual interest rate of 15% was not a penalty. This was distinguished in Fernhill on the grounds that in Taiwan Scott the parties were both commercial concerns, whereas in Fernhill the buyer was an individual.

Golden Ocean Group Ltd. v Salgaocar Mining Industries PVT Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 56 (Comm)

Negotiations by email: In this shipping case the Court held that negotiations by email and related documents could arguably amount to a guarantee for the purposes of the Statute of Frauds 1677, even though no hard copy of the final form of guarantee was signed. Parties should therefore remember to be careful when conducting commercial negotiations by email that they do not unintentionally enter into an agreement. The best way of seeking to do that is by expressly making such communications "subject to contract".

Harrison & Ors v Shepherd Homes Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 1811 (TCC)

Notification of defects – NHBC: Defects to foundations had arisen across an entire development of 94 houses. The Court found the developer to be in breach of the duties imposed by section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, and also considered whether written notice of defects was a requirement to recovery under the NHBC Buildmark scheme. Section 2 of the relevant Buildmark scheme states that the builder must put right the defects notified to him in writing within the relevant period of cover (the first 2 years). Some of the homeowners had not given notice to the developer in writing within the two year period. It was held however that the developer could not rely on the failure to give written notice in those cases. The developer had received written notice of the defects in other properties which it was discovered were a problem across the development – this amounted to constructive notice. It was also held that there had been an election to waive the notice requirements in correspondence. Developers should therefore take care not to unintentionally waive the requirement for written notice to be given, and should not assume in a case where defects cover a number of properties that a failure to give written notice will prevent liability for defects in the properties where no written notice is given.

Jenson & Anor v Faux [2011] EWCA Civ 423

Defective Premises Act: The Court of Appeal confirmed that substantial renovations to a property will not fall within section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. The section only applies to new dwellings. To fall within the Act therefore the party seeking to rely on section 1 must therefore show that the building is demonstrably new.

Jet2.Com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd [2011] EWHC 1529 (Comm)

All reasonable endeavours: In this case it was held that an obligation on a party to use "all reasonable endeavours" could include an obligation to act against its own commercial interests. What constitutes "all reasonable endeavours" will depend on the facts of any case but this highlights the need for caution when accepting such an obligation.

Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13

Experts' immunity: The Supreme Court held by a majority that experts' immunity from a claim where they have been negligent and/or in breach of contract in carrying out their services as experts should be abolished.

Robinson v P.E.Jones (Contractors) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 9

Builders' tortious duties: The Court of Appeal provided clear guidance on the extent to which a builder (or seller), owes concurrent duties in tort alongside contractual obligations arising under the building contract. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance judgment that, although a builder can owe concurrent duties in tort and in contract, the builder will not have tortious liability for pure economic loss (i.e. for losses other than the cost of repair) unless he has assumed responsibility and the client has relied upon this (as per the Hedley Byrne v Heller principles).

In addition, in this case, the builder had limited its liability for defects to liability for defects covered by the NHBC Agreement. The Court held that this limitation satisfied the requirements for reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act and accordingly the claimant's claim in tort (in respect of defective flues which emerged some 12 and a half years after completion) failed.

Adjudication disputes

CN Associates (a firm) v Holbeton Limited [2011] EWHC 43 (TCC) and Durham County Council v Jeremy Kendall (t/a HLB Architects) [2011] EWHC 780 (TCC)

Adjudicator's jurisdiction: These two cases are a useful reminder that where you disagree that the adjudicator has jurisdiction to decide a dispute, you should expressly reserve your position in both correspondence and your submissions, and also regularly maintain and state the reservations that you are relying on throughout the adjudication to allow these reservations to be pursued in any later challenge in the Courts to the adjudicator's jurisdiction.

Lanes Group Plc v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd (t/a Galliford Try Rail) [2011] EWCA Civ 1617

Forum shopping and bias: This Court of Appeal case concerned conjoined appeals in three separate actions from 2011 concerning an adjudication decision (see the previous cases between the parties: [2011] EWHC 1234 (TCC) (07 April 2011), [2011] EWHC 1035 (TCC) (19 April 2011), [2011] EWHC 1679 (TCC) (06 July 2011)).

Galliford applied to the ICE to appoint an adjudicator. The ICE appointed Mr Klein and he accepted the appointment. Galliford's solicitors however did not then serve the referral documents, on the basis that Mr Klein would be biased due to a robust clash that Galliford's solicitors had previously had with him in an earlier case. Galliford then applied to the ICE to appoint a new adjudicator, and ICE accordingly appointed Mr Atkinson. Lanes contended that Mr Atkinson did not have jurisdiction on the grounds that only Mr Klein was appointed to hear the dispute. Lanes' attempt to restrain Mr Atkinson from proceeding was unsuccessful.

Before Lanes had issued their response Mr Atkinson issued a document of his "Preliminary Views". Lanes challenged his ultimate decision on the basis that it was the product of bias as he appeared to have made up his mind on the bulk of the issues without seeing Lanes' response (and again sought to challenge jurisdiction). The Judge held that there was no bar to Galliford abandoning its first adjudication and serving a fresh notice, but did hold in Lanes' favour that there had been apparent bias. The issues were referred to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that Mr Atkinson did have jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The Court noted that it does sometimes happen that an adjudication is not pursued after the preliminary steps have been taken, but there is no authority to state that if you do not pursue it you lose the right to adjudicate that dispute forever. There are also a number of situations where the procedure could be thwarted if there was no right to re-start an adjudication, for example a postal delay. It was argued that there might be some distinction to be made when deliberately and without good reason failing to serve the referral, however (although the Court noted that forum shopping is never attractive), the Court did not agree that this could be implied here. In the previous decision Judge Waksman had also doubted that forum shopping in adjudication is a real problem in the construction industry.

The Court disagreed that there was apparent bias, noting that the Preliminary View was marked as provisional, and also that there is nothing objectionable in a judge setting out their preliminary view at an early stage to allow the parties to correct any errors in the judge's thinking. It was also noted that adjudication is carried out at great speed and that the adjudicator will need to fashion his procedure in whatever way so as to allow him to discharge his duties most swiftly, effectively and fairly.

Profile Projects Ltd v Elmwood (Glasgow) Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSOH 64

Tolent clauses: The Scottish Court of Session (somewhat surprisingly) followed the earlier decision of Bridgeway v Tolent rather than the more recent Yuanda v WW Gear case and held that the clause requiring the referring party to pay the whole costs of adjudication, including both parties' costs and the adjudicators' expenses did not fall foul of section 108 of the Construction Act. It will be interesting to see how "Tolent" clauses are interpreted by the Courts following the introduction of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 which intended to outlaw such provisions but arguably has done the opposite!

Witney Town Council v Beam Construction (Cheltenham) Ltd [2011] EWHC 2332 (TCC)

Dispute or disputes?: The Council in this case argued that more than one dispute had been referred to adjudication (including disputes as to a draft Final Account, a later Final Account, interest on underpayment of retention and a claim for the payment of the whole of the retention). Beam argued that there was only one dispute encompassing what was due and owing. Mr Justice Akenhead held that there were clear links between the Final Account and the other matters in dispute and that it was unrealistic to say that these were different disputes. Accordingly the Judge held that there was only one dispute, as to what was due and owing to the contractor. The case highlights that where the dispute in question relates to several issues the matters that are referred to the adjudicator and the relief sought must have some common link to avoid being challenged in enforcement proceedings as having encompassed more than one dispute.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.