Cases - Brewin v Chamberlain
Record details
- Name
- Brewin v Chamberlain
- Date
- (1949)
- Citation
- Unreported May 13, 1949
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Contract administration
- Summary
-
Birkett J had to consider what was a reasonable sum to be paid to an architect for carrying out only part of his services where there was no express agreement as to how such a sum should be calculated. The employer argued that the fee should be calculated on the basis of a daily rate; the architect argued it should be assessed as a percentage of the estimated cost of works that had been abandoned.
Both contentions were rejected: the time basis was inappropriate because it failed to take account of the value of architectural inspiration inherent in the work; the percentage basis was also too narrow in the factors to which it had regard.
The judge set out a list of the relevant factors to be taken into account when assessing a reasonable fee. He held that both the time spent and the fact that there was a term that limited the recoverable fee to a maximum percentage were relevant factors to be taken into account. Other relevant factors were the complexity of the job; the standard and merit of the drawings prepared; the standing and experience of the architect; and the amount and nature of the work required.
Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, a 'construction contract' is defined as including an agreement to do architectural, design or surveying work or to provide advice on building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or on landscaping in relation to construction operations: see section 104(2). Accordingly, where a contract administrator's employment falls within that definition, the provisions of the Act (such as those relating to stage payments and the right to suspend work for non-payment) will apply.