Cases - London Borough of Merton v Leach
Record details
- Name
- London Borough of Merton v Leach
- Date
- [1985]
- Citation
- 32 BLR 51
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Contract adminstration - Arbitration Act 1979
- Summary
-
The defendants were the main contractors for the claimant in relation to the construction of 287 dwellings. The defendants were appointed under the JCT standard form (1963 edition, 1971 revision). A number of disputes arose and were referred to arbitration, to be subsequently appealed by the claimant pursuant to the Arbitration Act 1979.
Among other issues, the court considered whether the terms of the contract permitted the contractor to recover direct loss and expense when it was not possible to say with any certainty how much loss and expense could be attributed to a particular event.
It was concluded that where an application is made for reimbursement of direct loss and expense attributable to more than one head of claim, and at the time when the loss or expense comes to be ascertained, it is impossible to attach a specific amount to each head of claim, the contract administrator should:
- ascertain the global loss attributable to the various causes;
- disregard any loss or expense which would have been recoverable if the claim had been made under one head of claim in isolation and would not have been recoverable under the other head of claim in isolation.
Therefore, so long as the contractor had not himself caused the confusion through unreasonable delay, he was not to be unfairly deprived of an intended benefit.
Per Vinelott J:
'[Under the JCT Standard Form, 1963 Edition] the architect acts as the servant or agent of the building owner in supplying the contractor with the necessary drawings, instructions, levels and the like and in supervising the progress of the work and in ensuring that it is properly carried out. He will of course normally though not invariably have been responsible for the design of the work ... To the extent that the architect performs these duties the building owner contracts with the contractor that the architect will perform them with reasonable diligence and with reasonable skill and care. The contract also confers on the architect discretionary powers which he must exercise with due regard to the interests of the contractor and the building owner. The building owner does not undertake that the architect will exercise his discretionary powers reasonably; he undertakes that although the architect may be engaged or employed by him he will leave him free to exercise his discretions fairly and without improper interference by him.'