Construction of extension to property — Standard of workmanship — Expert report that foundations too shallow — Judge concluding that in providing such foundations the defendant was in breach of contract with plaintiff — Appeal by defendant dismissed
The plaintiff purchased Little Meadow, Wissett Road, Halesworth, Suffolk. Before moving in she instructed the defendant, a building contractor, to carry out certain works at the property. Part of those works involved the construction of a single-storey utility room of about 50 sq ft (5m2) in size at the side of the property. The contract between the parties was oral and was a design and build contract. No architect or other professional expert was employed. There were no plans and no estimate. The work on the extension was carried out, but the plaintiff complained of the poor standard of workmanship.
After obtaining expert reports she issued a summons in the county court claiming compensation on the basis that the work on the extension had not been carried out with reasonable care and skill and that the extension was not of merchantable quality. Among other things complaint was made of the adequacy of the foundations. The expert report stated that up to five years would have had to pass before it could be asserted with total confidence, rather than as a probable correct opinion, that the foundations were adequate. The judge decided that good and proper foundations were foundations that did not invite very real questions. Had more substantial foundations been provided, the cracking that had occurred could have been attributed with much greater confidence to the bedding down process contended for by the defendant. Having viewed the property, read the expert reports and heard oral evidence, the judge concluded that in providing the foundations that he did, the defendant was in breach of his contract with the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The implied obligation of the defendant was to carry out to works in a good and workmanlike manner and to supply and use sufficient and suitable materials.
2. The standard of work to be attained by the defendant was to be a reasonable standard in the context of the particular circumstances of the contract.
3. The judge’s reference to a duty to “design and build the utility room extension with good and proper foundations” was not intended to impose a higher duty. He was only applying the general obligation in the specific context of an obligation to provide proper foundations.
4. It was common ground that the extension had been built on “made” ground and that very substantial precautions had been taken when the foundations of the new property next door had been laid.
5. The foundations laid were less deep and less wide than any expert would have specified.
6. The plaintiff was entitled to something more than work at the very bottom end of the scale. She was entitled to work of a reasonable standard carried out in a good and workmanlike manner. Such a standard required the provision of good and proper foundations which were suitable for the subsoil. There was evidence to support the judge’s conclusion that the foundations were not built to a reasonable standard.
7. Accordingly, the judge’s finding of a breach of contract were upheld.
Graham Sinclair (instructed by Norton Peskett & Forward, of Lowestoft) appeared for the appellant defendant; the respondent plaintiff appeared in person.
