Cases - Dhamija v Sunningdale Joineries Ltd

Record details

Name

Dhamija v Sunningdale Joineries Ltd

Date

[2010]

Citation

EWHC 2396 (TCC)

Keywords

Negligence in valuations and surveys

Summary

The claimant house owners ‘D’ sued for alleged defects in the design and construction of their house. They sued the building contractor, architect and the quantity surveyor ‘M’. D alleged that M owed them a duty of care to only value work that had been properly completed (i.e. not negligently) by the contractor. Where the work was obviously defective it should not be included in its valuation. There was no written contract between D and M as M had been instructed by a series of letters.

It was held that a contract arose between D and M, evidenced by the letters passing between the parties. The duty alleged by D could only arise in tort or by virtue of an implied term. There was no reason why such a term would arise in tort but it was found to be a term of the instructions that the value of the works was to be assessed by reference to works properly executed by the contractor. In order to give business efficacy to the contract there followed an implied term that M would act with reasonable care and skill in arriving at that figure. However that obligation was not absolute. It was not necessary for the operation of the contract to imply such a term. M did not therefore warrant that only properly executed works formed part of the valuation. In particular there was no positive duty on M to inspect the works done. It was primarily the responsibility of the architect to notify the quantity surveyor of defects affecting the valuation. As such the claim against M was weak and unlikely to succeed, although it was not struck out as the judge considered that further disclosure might assist the claim.