Portsea Island Mutual Co-op Soc Ltd v Michael Brashier Associates
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; 1989 CILL 520-522(3)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: 10 July 1989. Action by tenant (P) of supermarket , alleging negligence against architects (M) who designed and supervised its construction. Practical completion took place in 1980 and from September 1980 P took a full repairing lease, becoming liable to pay for all defects . In 1984 defects were discovered. Brickslips fell from the walls; others had to be removed to prevent being a danger to staff and customers. There were defects in the car park walls such as lack of mortar, unsatisfactory pointing and inadequate damp proof courses. The builder could not be sued because M had issued a final certificate in 1982. The main points at issue were: 1) assuming that the brickslip facing was a source of danger, should M be liable for the costs of removal and replacement, and 2) assuming there were defects in the car park walls, which did not render danger, should M be liable for the remedial costs. Held: 1) P could recover from M the cost of removing the brickslips, but not of fixing new on| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS41387 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 29845-1001 |
10 July 1989. Action by tenant (P) of supermarket , alleging negligence against architects (M) who designed and supervised its construction. Practical completion took place in 1980 and from September 1980 P took a full repairing lease, becoming liable to pay for all defects . In 1984 defects were discovered. Brickslips fell from the walls; others had to be removed to prevent being a danger to staff and customers. There were defects in the car park walls such as lack of mortar, unsatisfactory pointing and inadequate damp proof courses. The builder could not be sued because M had issued a final certificate in 1982. The main points at issue were: 1) assuming that the brickslip facing was a source of danger, should M be liable for the costs of removal and replacement, and 2) assuming there were defects in the car park walls, which did not render danger, should M be liable for the remedial costs. Held: 1) P could recover from M the cost of removing the brickslips, but not of fixing new on