Cases - Lusty v Finsbury Securities Ltd

Record details

Name

Lusty v Finsbury Securities Ltd

Date

(1991)

Citation

58 BLR 66

Keywords

Contract - fees - architect - additional work - new contract - whether a new contract - whether the architect was entitled to payment on a quantum meruit basis - whether the architect was entitled to give his own view as to the level of his fees

Summary

The claimant was an architect employed by the defendant property owners in connection with the construction of an office block. The defendant revised the scheme, and the claimant agreed to submit drawings for the revised scheme. He told the defendant that the cost would be about £2,000. The claimant was not paid for the revised drawings. The scheme was never built. The claimant's contention that there was an agreement to pay the extra £2,000, to which the defendants had consented by their silence, failed.

However, the trial judge gave judgment for the claimant, holding that there was a new contract for extra work and a quantum meruit was £2,300. On appeal, it was held that the claimant's evidence as to the value of his work was admissible (that he was an interested party went only to the weight of his evidence). If every time a professional sued for their fees they had to have some independent evidence for what they themselves considered to be their proper fees, it would clearly be intolerable. They must be fully entitled to give their own view to the court and to see whether the court accepts that view of what is the proper sum to be awarded for the fees which they proposed to charge.