The defendant, Christopher King, and the principal of the claimant, Stephen Donald, were friends. The defendant instructed the claimant to prepare plans, apply for planning permission and arrange and supervise the building works for the development of a property he owned. A dispute arose prior to the completion of the project over payment, which led to the end of relations between the parties.

*Full case details Stephen Donald Architects Limited vs Christopher King, 30 July 2003, High Court Queens Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court, Judgment of His Honour Judge Seymour QC
The claimant sought payment of professional fees for architectural work pursuant to a contract or, alternatively, damages on a quantum meruit basis and additionally damages for repudiatory breach of contract. The defendant alleged that it had been agreed that no fees were to be paid until the development was successfully completed and that the claimant had been negligent in failing to take account of the defendant's actual requirements and funding capacity when preparing the designs, with the result that the claimant's work was not only of no value to the defendant, but had caused him distress, inconvenience and also loss and damage in the form of costs of employing other architects.

Reference

The judge decided that the claimant never entered into a legally binding agreement in relation to fees and that their involvement was on a speculative basis arising from their principal's friendship with the defendant. They were therefore unable to recover any professional fees. The judge also rejected the claimant's quantum meruit claim on the basis that the project had been a joint venture between the claimant and the defendant for mutual profit and the claimant had assumed the risk that the defendant might decide not to proceed with the project in the form in which the claimant had designed it. The judge also rejected the claimant's claim for wrongful repudiation, as there had been no contract between the parties and therefore the defendant was entitled to bring his relations with the claimant to an end at any time without legal liability. The judge nevertheless refused to allow the defendant's counterclaim in relation to the affordability of the designs prepared by the claimant as the claimant took the steps a reasonably competent architect should have taken once it became apparent that the construction costs would exceed the defendant's budget.

For further information, call Tony Francis or Nicholas Gould on 0207 956 9354

www.fenwick-elliott.co.uk

Postscript

This case provides a caution to those who undertake work without entering into a formal contract on the assumption that, if one is never entered into, there will be a quantum meruit claim for a reasonable price for the work done as a fall back. If the risk is not clearly allocated, then it is open to a court to find, as it did here, that on the facts the party carrying out the work undertook the entire risk of the project not proceeding and could therefore recover nothing, even though the other party had acquired a real benefit at its expense. An agreement between friends, if not put in a detailed legal framework, should not be assumed to give rise to legal remedies which a court will provide at a later date if the friendship turns sour.