Case notes

Sold! Without really meaning to...
Mrs Voyce AND her husband were due to divorce. So Mrs Voyce contacted estate agent Day Morris in order to obtain a current market valuation of their house.

Mrs Voyce should have signed and returned a letter from Day Morris which said it would market the house and take a 2.5% commission. She did neither, and treated its correspondence as junk mail. Day Morris introduced Janet Lee who made an offer which Mr Voyce rejected.

When the divorce court decided that Mr Voyce would get his wife's share of the house and pay her cash, Mrs Voyce told Day Morris to take the house off the market.

However, Mr Voyce tracked down Mrs Lee and sold her the house. Day Morris wanted its commission and took Mrs Voyce to court. She argued that there was no contract and anyway she had no control over the sale of the house. The court disagreed, holding that Mrs Voyce should have explained any reservations when the agents first started the process. She had accepted by conduct and was bound by it.

Moral: You don't have to sign
Case: Day Morris Associates v Voyce EWCA Civ 189. (February 2003)

Not so quick on the draw
TAYlor woodrow finished 43 weeks late on the development of the Royal Brompton Hospital.

Following an arbitration and negotiations costing it £2m, Royal Brompton had to pay Taylor Woodrow another £11.4m. Royal Brompton was aggrieved and ultimately looked to its consultants to recover some of the money.

Before the contract started, M&E consultants Austen Associates had advised that the bulk of the M&E design information was ready for issue.

However, level one first fix drawings were eight weeks late and by level six, the drawings were 14 weeks late. Even then they were only indicative, and failed to show pipe duct or cable sizes or ductwork locations.

As a result, Taylor Woodrow could not prepare its own installation drawings or form service holes in internal walls or the concrete slabs.

By the end of the project, Taylor Woodrow had received an extension of time totalling 16 weeks for late M&E information.

The court held that if Austen Associates had performed its work as promised, Royal Brompton would not have had to pay Taylor Woodrow's claims.

Moral: Beware the domino effect
Case: The Royal Brompton NHS Trust v various (TCC October 2002)

More wrangles at the Royal Brompton
One of Royal Brompton's tender savings had been to omit Isocrete screeds and use a power-floated concrete slab finish instead. Drying out the concrete was Taylor Woodrow's contractual responsibility. The floor covering was lino. During 1988 and early 1989 there was much discussion about Taylor Woodrow having to heat the building during a second winter due to other delays.

In March 1989, the lino subcontractor warned that the slabs contained too much water and that damp proof membrane was needed. The direct cost was £70,000 and floors would be unusable for several days. The architect gave the variation.

The alternative would have been to wait for an unknown period while the slabs slowly dried out through the power-floated surface. However, Taylor Woodrow also claimed a delay and loss and expense as a result.

Royal Brompton argued that the Architect had been incorrect in failing to realise or to warn of these additional costs and of failing to insist that drying out was Taylor Woodrow's responsibility. Then Taylor Woodrow would have had to carry out the membrane at its own cost to save drying and completion time.

The court sided with Royal Brompton.

Moral: Watch that advice!
Case: The Royal Brompton NHS Trust v various (TCC October 2002)

The hole truth
These days you have to be quick when you dig a hole in the road. Transco got caught in completing work on gas pipes in Leicestershire and Leicestershire County Council (LCC) billed Transco £111,500 for being late to finish digging holes in the road for gas works on six separate occasions. The zippily titled Street Works (Charges for Unreasonably Prolonged Occupation of the Highway [England] Regulations) 2001 now allows a local authority to charge up to £2,000 per day for delay.

Transco told LCC that it had finished the work earlier than the dates LCC was using. LCC agreed. However, it said, the Regulations required Transco to submit Completion Notes and the work was deemed to have been completed one day later. There were too many roadworks to expect LCC to carry out its own checks. The court agreed with LCC and Transco lost.

Moral: Don't throw your cash down a hole.
Case: Leicestershire County Council v Transco plc. Queen's Bench Division April 2003