UK: Damages: Your Building Is Defective - Are You Entitled To Demolition And Reinstatement Costs Or Simply The Costs Of Repair?

Last Updated: 1 March 2007
Article by Jeremy Glover

Since The Board of Governors of the Hospitals for Sick Children and Another v McLaughlin & Harvey plc and others – ("the Great Ormond Street case") [1987] 19 Con LR 25) - it has become something of a construction lawyer's "rule of thumb" that if a claimant wants to recover the cost of rectification it is more likely to do so if remedial works have been carried out upon a professional consultant's advice.

That rule of thumb was tested in an unusual case which recently came before His Honour Judge Coulson QC. That case was McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd & Others [2007] EWHC 149 (TCC), which concerned a house called 'Maison d'Or' that was built for the Claimant, in St Aubin, in Jersey. The house took three years to build. Following the departure of the building contractors in January 2002, when the house was substantially complete, it sat empty for the next 3 years whilst the alleged deficiencies in its design and construction were the subject of extensive investigation by a team of experts and contractors.

In the early part of 2005, it was completely demolished. It was never lived in and has not been rebuilt. It was the Claimant’s case that Maison d'Or was so badly designed, and so badly built, that he was entitled to demolish it and start again. The original claim was for damages for breach of contract/negligence against the building contractors, the architects the structural, mechanical and electrical engineers and the quantity surveyors and project managers. The contractor played no part in the hearing because they were in administration.

The Claimant’s primary case on damages was put by reference to the actual cost of demolition and the estimated cost of rebuilding the whole house, calculated at £3,649,481.34. An alternative case was put by reference to the estimated costs of repairing the individual elements which are said to be defective, producing a final figure of £2,487,246.29.

The basic starting point is that awards of damages for breach of contract are intended to put the innocent party in the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed, so far as money can do this. So, for example, the usual measure of damages for defective work or materials is either the diminution in value of the property which results from the defects, or the cost of putting the defects right, subject to considerations of reasonableness and mitigation of loss. The normal measure of damages for defective work is the cost of reinstatement taken at the time when the defect was discovered. However, if the cost of reinstatement is out of all proportion to the benefit to be obtained by the building owner from the remedial works then the correct measure is the diminution in value.

This was made clear in the House of Lords’ decision in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth. Following Ruxley, the following applies:

  1. The question of whether you will be allowed the cost of the remedial works claimed should be answered according to whether remedial cost would be so wholly disproportionate to its benefit as to make it unreasonable;
  2. If it is so disproportionate, you may be entitled to recover on the basis of diminution of value, if there has been any, and
  3. Damages are not limited to only diminution of value or reinstatement. There may be a middle figure to reflect loss of amenity or inconvenience through the claimant not having received what he wanted and what he contracted for.

Therefore following Ruxley, where reinstatement is the appropriate basis for the assessment of damages, it must be both reasonable to reinstate and the amount awarded must be objectively fair as between all parties. In the case here before Judge Coulson, the following two issues arose:

  1. Was the Claimant entitled to damages against each Defendant based on the costs of demolition and rebuilding, as opposed to the costs of repair, as a result of the decision in Great Ormond Street? And
  2. What was the right measure of loss in the present case?

As noted above, it has been often been thought that a claimant would be entitled to the cost of the work carried out pursuant to that expert advice. Judge Coulson disagreed with that proposition. He referred to the case of Skandia Property UK Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [1999] BLR 338 where the claimant was advised by experts that a tanking system was the only practical way to protect a building that had been damaged by a flood caused by the defendant. However, at the time that such advice was given and acted upon, the experts had been unaware of pressure grouting treatment which had been performed some time prior to the flood, and which meant that the flood had not in fact damaged the integrity of the building. The tanking system that was put in as part of the remedial scheme was therefore shown to be unnecessary. In the Court of Appeal Waller LJ noted that:

"Certainly, simple reliance by a plaintiff on an expert cannot be the test as to whether a plaintiff has acted reasonably in making an assumption, albeit, provided the plaintiff has provided the expert with all material facts and the expert has made all reasonable investigations, the advice will be a highly significant factor."

The Claimant argued that as the decision to demolish Maison d'Or was taken on expert advice and it was not suggested that that expert advice was negligent, accordingly, he was entitled to the costs, or a proportion of the costs, of demolition and rebuilding as against each of the Defendants. The Defendants argued that Great Ormond Street was not authority for the wide proposition that the existence of expert advice to demolish and rebuild automatically means that, without more, the Defendants are liable for the costs of such work, and that all other considerations are essentially rendered irrelevant.

This was the approach the Judge preferred. The correct way to proceed was on the basis that each Defendant should only be liable for the damage for which that Defendant was responsible. The over-riding test was one of reasonableness. Accordingly damages in respect of each Defendant should be measured by reference to the cost of reinstating those individual defects for which each Defendant was found to be liable, not for the (greater) costs of demolition and rebuilding. The decision in Great Ormond Street could be distinguished from the present case in a variety of significant ways. For example, the defects at Maison d'Or affected all of the main elements of the house. However most of these defects were aesthetic in nature. In Great Ormond Street, most of the problems were connected with the structural soundness of the building itself.

The Judge was also troubled by the decision to demolish the building. As he noted, this is an extreme course particularly where the majority of the defects related to aesthetic matters only. The only justification to demolish, in the view of the Judge, would be because the building is dangerous or structurally unsound. Further, there was only a relatively modest difference between the costs of demolition and rebuilding and the cost of repair. That was a relevant matter in any consideration of which remedial scheme to adopt. Demolition and rebuilding should always be an option which should only be considered as a last resort.

Finally, it was necessary to bear in mind that the Claimant's claim was made against a number of defendants who had different liabilities for the items which were said to have justified the demolition. Even if the Claimant had acted reasonably in deciding to demolish the house, was it right that he could recover the costs of demolition as damages against a particular Defendant in circumstances where only a handful of those defects were the responsibility of that Defendant? The Judge felt that the attempt to allocate the costs to each Defendant on percentage basis was global or even arbitrary, and thus contrary to practicalities and common sense.

The claim for the costs of demolition and rebuilding should be contrasted with the claim for the costs of repair. The claims in respect of the cost of repair of were largely agreed having been the subject of careful consideration and discussions between the experts. Detailed remedial solutions had been agreed by the technical experts and quantified by the surveying experts.


The Judge was clear that the recent authorities make plain that the court must award damages which are reasonable and objectively fair as between the claimants and the defendants. It would be unreasonable to award an arbitrary allocation of the costs of demolition and rebuilding instead of the agreed figures for the cost of repair. The Judge also took heed of the warning in Skandia, and treated the expert advice as a factor, but not the only factor, relevant to the issue of reasonableness. Therefore he decided that the right measure of loss in this case was the agreed cost of the work necessary to repair the defects for which each Defendant is liable. That was the basis on which the liability experts had worked in agreeing remedial schemes for the individual Items in the Scott Schedule, and it was the basis on which the quantum experts had agreed the figures. The cost of the remedial work was the reasonable measure of loss in all the circumstances and it would be unreasonable to assess the damages by reference to any other methodology.

This article is based on an article from a forthcoming issue of the Fenwick Elliott Dispatch, a monthly newsletter which summarises recent key developments relating to contentious and non-contentious construction law issues. To see the current issue please visit

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.

Jeremy Glover
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.