Architect’s fees — Purchase of building — Change of use — Structural alterations — Architect claiming payment for work done — Defendants alleging architect’s work unsatisfactory — Assessment of appropriate fee — Counterclaim for breach of contract — Establishing degree of supervision required — Whether work delays resulting in loss — Claim and counterclaim allowed in part
The defendants, G and his wife, were hoteliers. Their speciality was high-quality country house hotels. In 1988 they purchased The Manor, Chadlington, Oxford, which was then a listed building and a private house. To change the building into an hotel they needed to make many structural alterations and for that purpose needed listed building consent, change of use consent and building regulations consent as well as plans, specifications and contracts. They entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, an architect, to assist them. The defendants were dissatisfied with the plaintiff’s work and required him to cease work on the project, save for the completion of outstanding planning matters. The plaintiff subsequently claimed payment in respect of unpaid fees plus interest from the defendants. The defendants disputed the fees and counterclaimed in damages for breach of contract. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff was at fault in so many respects that he was in repudiatory breach of the contract. The task for the court was to assess the appropriate fee for the work done by the plaintiff and then set against that whatever sum might be found payable on the counterclaim.
Held Judgment for the plaintiff on the claim for £20,460.46 with costs. Judgment on the counterclaim for £11,145 with half of the counterclaim costs. No interest was awarded on either the claim or the counterclaim.
1. The first issue was what were the contractual terms as to fees. Both parties accepted that the appropriate percentage fee was 10%. The defendants claimed that the 10% should be charged upon “the total construction cost of the works designed by the architect”. The plaintiff argued that the 10% should be charged upon the “estimated contract figure”, ie the figure placed in the contract as the contract price based on an agreed estimate. On the basis of expert evidence and in the context of letters passing between the parties at the outset, a reasonable sum was 10% of the final accounting figure, with appropriate deductions for work not done by the plaintiff.
2. The defendants had complained that the plaintiff had failed to supervise the works done and that raised the difficult question of what was sufficient supervision by an architect. In the end, that was to be tested not by the number of hours worked on site or elsewhere, but by asking whether it was enough. In this case the builder was reliable and probably did not need a great deal of supervision. However, quite apart from the supervision of the builder, there was a great need for a very high degree of work and attention from the plaintiff, especially in the early stages, in co-ordinating effort and in making sure that everything was put in hand as soon as possible. This was not a project in which the plaintiff could move in an orderly way stage by stage from planning to tender to completion. On the evidence, however, the project was inadequately controlled and the plaintiff was in continuous breach of contract in that regard.
3. There had also been allegations of delay and it had to be remembered that, when considering delay in this case, one was looking to see whether any damage had been caused by the delay. The court could well understand that the plaintiff had caused a great deal of aggravation and distress to the defendant and his wife well beyond the amount of damage proved on the counterclaim. On the other hand, he had provided extremely valuable services to them. Without his work they might not have obtained planning permission for the hotel. Yet overall, it must be borne in mind that the main reason the damages on the counterclaim were as small as they were was that the defendant and his wife had mitigated their loss by supplementing the plaintiff’s efforts by work of their own.
Bernard Devlin (instructed by Cole & Cole, of Oxford) appeared for the plaintiff; and Jeremy Carey (instructed by Fowler & Co, of Oakham) appeared for the defendants.
