Legal News

In the recent case of Beattie Passive Norse Ltd & Anor v Canham Consulting Ltd [2021] EWHC 1116 (TCC), Mr Justice Fraser awarded the sum of £2000 to the Claimants that brought the claim, who were seeking £3.7m.

Background

Beattie Passive Norse Ltd (“BPN”) and their shareholder, NPS Property Consulting Ltd (“NPS”) brought a claim for negligence and a breach of contract against Canham Consulting Ltd (“Canham”). BPN and NPS owned two blocks of buildings in Burwash, Sussex, called Block A and Block B.

Canham was hired to construct Block A and Block B’s foundation designs which BPN and NPS argued was professionally negligent and led to the demolishment and rebuilding of Blocks A and B. BPN argued that this led to a total loss of approximately £3.7 million.

However, there were a number of issues that broke the chain of causation between Canham’s foundation designs and the decision by BPN and NPS to demolish and rebuild.

The contractor used, Foxdown Enginnering Ltd (“Foxdown”), received an outdated revision (Revision A) of the foundation designs from BPN rather than the updated construction drawings (Revision B) made by Canham. Rather than the more robust design of Revision B being used, Revision A was issued for construction.

Instead of remediating the defects in Canham’s design, Block A and B were both demolished and this led to further expenditure on the construction project, incurring millions of pounds.

Despite the negligent defects in Canham’s design which fell below the expectations of a reasonably competent engineer in the design of the foundations, these defects could have been remediated without demolishing the Blocks. Block A and Block B had a wide range of other construction defects that had nothing to do with Canham’s design of the foundations. With emphasis on Block A’s structure being extremely poor that it would have been needed to be demolished irrespective of the negligent designs from Canham.


Why BNP and NPS were awarded £2,000

The causation between Canham’s designs and the costs incurred in the decision to demolish Block A and Block B could not be linked. The judge, however, awarded £2,000 to the claimants for the costs of the remedial works that should have been made to Block B’s foundation for the negligent designs.

BPN’s structural expert was extremely subjective with the evidence. The judge found that this expert had exaggerated the evidence in support of BPN’s claims.

Litigation director Anthony Okumah comments on the case.

“It is not unusual for the court to place emphasis on establishing causation despite it being highly sensitive. This can be seen with the similar decision in County Ltd v Girozentrale Securities [1996] 3 All ER 834 where the judge considered whether various unforeseeable events combined with the breach ultimately caused the loss. Therefore, it is important to note that if the claim does not arise out of the defendant’s wrongdoing i.e. their breach of contract or negligence, but rather due to another event, the claimant cannot recover in respect to that independent event.”


Author Anthony Okumah is a Director and Head of the Duncan Lewis Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department. He specialises in dispute resolution (litigation, arbitration or mediation), professional negligence claims predominantly against solicitors, debt recovery; insolvency; contractual disputes, leasehold disputes and contentious probate cases. Anthony also has an in-depth experience of boundary and neighbourhood dispute cases and additionally he regularly conducts his own advocacy in both the County Court and the High Court which allows him to represent his clients throughout their retainer.

Contact Anthony on 020 3114 1227 or email him on anthonyo@duncanlewis.com