Cases - London Borough of Lewisham v Leslie

Record details

Name

London Borough of Lewisham v Leslie

Date

(1978)

Citation

205 EG 1289

Keywords

Contract administration

Summary

The claimant was the successor to the London County Council which had engaged the defendant contractors to construct four tower blocks in Lewisham in 1960. Construction works were completed in 1961. During the course of a routine fire inspection in 1971, it was discovered that there was a gap between the concrete shell and the cladding of one of the buildings. Further investigations were carried out and it transpired that the contractor had neglected to fit approximately three-quarters of the required number of Abbey ties to seal the cladding to the concrete shell. Considerable remedial works were required and an action was brought in 1976 against the defendant to recover the costs of the same. The defendant argued that the proceedings were time-barred.

Lewisham relied on the judgment in King v Victor Parsons, arguing that the defects had been kept concealed both from itself and its predecessors; accordingly, time did not run against its claim until discovery of the defects in 1971. The Court of Appeal agreed with the claimant.

No distinction should be drawn between small-scale residential works and large, publicly-funded tower blocks: the mere fact that London County Council employed architects and surveyors who may have been in a position to notice any defects as they arose was not automatically sufficient for the defendant to defeat the allegation of deliberate concealment. This will be a matter of fact in each case. As Lord Denning MR explained (at 28):

'It only requires a little imagination to think of circumstances in which workmen may do their work badly, leaving defects - which the architect or supervisor would not discover, even by using reasonable diligence ... It is all very well to talk about the Council having its own architects and supervisors. But these gentlemen may have been misled by the contractors. The bad work may have been done when they were away or their backs were turned for some good reason.'