Rendlesham Estates plc v Barr Ltd
[2014] EWHC 3968 (TCC)
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
A builder who takes on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling owes a duty under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to see that the dwelling is fit for habitation when completed, and that duty is owed to every subsequent person who acquires an interest in the dwelling, whether or not that person has any contract with the builder.
Facts
The claimants were the owners of 120 apartments in two blocks in Concord Street, Leeds, built by Barr Ltd between 2003 and 2006 for the developer, City Wall Limited (CWC). Because the owners had no contract with Barr -- Barr's contract had been with CWC, which later went into administration -- they sued Barr directly under the Defective Premises Act 1972, alleging their apartments were not fit for habitation when completed. The claim covered numerous alleged defects, including leaking external glazing and roofs, mould and damp, and a faulty door entry system.
Judgment Summary
Edwards-Stuart J held that the statutory duty in section 1 of the 1972 Act -- to ensure a dwelling is fit for habitation when completed -- is owed by a builder such as Barr to every subsequent owner who acquires an interest in the dwelling, regardless of whether that owner has any contract with the builder. He held that the relevant 'dwelling' is the individual apartment (not the whole block), save that Barr also owed a duty in relation to the common parts. On the evidence, defects in the external glazing and roofs of both blocks rendered specific apartments unfit for habitation because of an ongoing risk of structural failure or water penetration, and the claimants were awarded the agreed cost of remedial works -- for example £1,639,250 for replacing the external glazing and £777,097 for replacing the roofs.
Key Quotes
"In my judgment, for a dwelling to be fit for habitation within the meaning of the Act, it must, on completion (without any remedial works being carried out): (a) be capable of occupation for a reasonable time without risk to the health or safety of the occupants … and (b) be capable of occupation for a reasonable time without undue inconvenience or discomfort to the occupants."
— Edwards-Stuart J at [68](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Cited in subsequent building defect claims under the Defective Premises Act.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help