000			01526cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS41388
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u29850
041			_aeng
245			_aRichardson v West Lindsay DC and Others
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aNew Law Journal _v139(6426) 22 September 1989, 1263-1265(3)
520			_aCA 25 July 1989. Appeal by R, owner of a bungalow, against decision in favour of council (W), holding that W did not owe R a duty of care . R extended his bungalow in 1983 and W failed to ensure work complied with the building regulations . In 1982 R submitted plans for building regulation approval, perused by the building inspector , but not formally approved by him. The plans were defective. The building inspector made frequent site visits, but did not observe roof construction which was erected within 24 hours to keep out the weather. The roof was inadequately constructed and later failed, causing R to suffer loss and damage. R claimed damages against W, alleging negligence in performing functions under the building regulations. The official referee rejected R`s claim and held that W did not owe a duty of care. R appealed. CA considered the decisions in Investors in Industry Commercial Properties Ltd v South Bedfordshire DC, Abstract 36378 and Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay P
650			_aBUILDING DEFECTS
650			_aLOCAL AUTHORITY
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c20081 _d20081