Ernst and Whinney v Willard Engineering (Dagenham) Ltd and others
Language: English Series: Construction Law Journal ; 3(4) 1988, 292-299(8)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: ORC 15 April 1987. The plaintiffs (EW) took an assignment of a lease on an office development in 1981. Before occupation substantial rebuilding was carried out. While testing the air conditioning ductwork it was found to be faulty. EW brought an action against the mechanical and electrical consultant engineers (S), the nominated subcontractors (E) and the ductwork subcontractors (W) alleging the defects were due to negligence . The judge found against EW on the grounds that E and S did not owe EW a duty of care . EW was not entitled to recover damages in respect of defects existing before their acquisition of any interest in the building and therefore was not entitled to damages in respect of any duty of care by E and S.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38688 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 11968-1001 |
ORC 15 April 1987. The plaintiffs (EW) took an assignment of a lease on an office development in 1981. Before occupation substantial rebuilding was carried out. While testing the air conditioning ductwork it was found to be faulty. EW brought an action against the mechanical and electrical consultant engineers (S), the nominated subcontractors (E) and the ductwork subcontractors (W) alleging the defects were due to negligence . The judge found against EW on the grounds that E and S did not owe EW a duty of care . EW was not entitled to recover damages in respect of defects existing before their acquisition of any interest in the building and therefore was not entitled to damages in respect of any duty of care by E and S.