Hadley Design Associates Ltd v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster
Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2003] EWHC 1617 (TCC), 9 July 2003. Respondent (W) had engaged claimant (H) as surveyor, in July 1987, for a rolling programme of works of an estate of 37 blocks which needed refurbishment. The contract was to extend over a number of years. It was based on the RICS "Conditions for engagement of building surveying services" and included a provision that either party could terminate the contract by giving one months notice. In 1996 W terminated the contract due to the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, the need to bring maintenance and repair work under one company and dissatisfaction with H's services. H brought proceedings claiming it was entitled to damages for lost profit, citing pre-contract assurances that the contract would only be terminated if H defaulted or W ran out of money. Judge concluded there was no proof of this. H's claim for consideraton under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 was also rejected. Judge ruled the termination at will clause was held and H's claim for damages rejected. View judgment at www.bailii.org.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS67031 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 123798-1001 |
[2003] EWHC 1617 (TCC), 9 July 2003. Respondent (W) had engaged claimant (H) as surveyor, in July 1987, for a rolling programme of works of an estate of 37 blocks which needed refurbishment. The contract was to extend over a number of years. It was based on the RICS "Conditions for engagement of building surveying services" and included a provision that either party could terminate the contract by giving one months notice. In 1996 W terminated the contract due to the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, the need to bring maintenance and repair work under one company and dissatisfaction with H's services. H brought proceedings claiming it was entitled to damages for lost profit, citing pre-contract assurances that the contract would only be terminated if H defaulted or W ran out of money. Judge concluded there was no proof of this. H's claim for consideraton under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 was also rejected. Judge ruled the termination at will clause was held and H's claim for damages rejected. View judgment at www.bailii.org.