Image from Google Jackets

William Tomkinson and Sons Ltd v The Parochial Church Council of St Michael and others

Language: English Series: Construction Law Journal ; (1990) 6 Const LJ 319-333(15)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: ORC 2 August 1990 The plaintiff contractors were employed by the first defendants, the church , to carry out restoration works at the parish church in Liverpool . Various disputes arose between the parties. Contractors brought proceedings for sums certified in interim certificate s and the church counterclaimed in respect of defects . A trial of preliminary issues was ordered. These issues concerned the terms of the contract between the contractors and the church and issues in respect of the church`s engagement of the architects , the second defendants. ORC held that 1) the architects had ostensible authority to enter into a JCT Minor Works Agreement 1980 with the contractor; 2) the architects were both in breach of contract and negligent for failure to advise employers as to the effect of clause 6.3B of the minor works agreement and that they should obtain insurance to cover their risk under that clause; 3) MW 1980 unlike JCT 1980 , did not require a written schedule of defects and
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS43925 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 44308-1001

ORC 2 August 1990 The plaintiff contractors were employed by the first defendants, the church , to carry out restoration works at the parish church in Liverpool . Various disputes arose between the parties. Contractors brought proceedings for sums certified in interim certificate s and the church counterclaimed in respect of defects . A trial of preliminary issues was ordered. These issues concerned the terms of the contract between the contractors and the church and issues in respect of the church`s engagement of the architects , the second defendants. ORC held that 1) the architects had ostensible authority to enter into a JCT Minor Works Agreement 1980 with the contractor; 2) the architects were both in breach of contract and negligent for failure to advise employers as to the effect of clause 6.3B of the minor works agreement and that they should obtain insurance to cover their risk under that clause; 3) MW 1980 unlike JCT 1980 , did not require a written schedule of defects and