Image from Google Jackets

D & F Estates v Church Commissioners

Language: English Series: New Law Journal ; 138(6366) 22 July 1988, 210-212(3)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: HL 14 July 1988 The plaintiffs D & F Estates (D) were lessees of a luxury flat built in 1965 by Wates Ltd for the defendants, the Church Commissioners (C). In 1980 and again in 1983 D discovered that the plaster work in the flat was defective due to negligence on behalf of the subcontractor. In an action brought by D, W was found liable for the defective plasterwork. On appeal to the CA held that W was not liable because a) they had employed competent subcontractors and b) the cost of repairing the defective plaster was pure economic loss. D appealed to HL which held that since the cost of repairing a defect in a structure is purely economic loss, in the absence of any contractual relationship or personal injury or damage to other property caused by the defect, the builder of the structure is not liable in negligence to a remote lessee of the strucuture for the cost of repairing the defect. Appeal accordingly dismissed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39482 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 17074-1001

HL 14 July 1988 The plaintiffs D & F Estates (D) were lessees of a luxury flat built in 1965 by Wates Ltd for the defendants, the Church Commissioners (C). In 1980 and again in 1983 D discovered that the plaster work in the flat was defective due to negligence on behalf of the subcontractor. In an action brought by D, W was found liable for the defective plasterwork. On appeal to the CA held that W was not liable because a) they had employed competent subcontractors and b) the cost of repairing the defective plaster was pure economic loss. D appealed to HL which held that since the cost of repairing a defect in a structure is purely economic loss, in the absence of any contractual relationship or personal injury or damage to other property caused by the defect, the builder of the structure is not liable in negligence to a remote lessee of the strucuture for the cost of repairing the defect. Appeal accordingly dismissed.