000			01517cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS45846
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u55418
041			_aeng
245			_aHiron & Legal and General Assurance v Pynford South Limited and others
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aConstruction Industry Law Letter _v1992 CILL 716-718(3)
520			_aChD 12 November 1991. H owned a property which in 1976 suffered structural damage. In September 1977 they retained a company L to advise them. On 17 February 1978 H made a claim on the insurance company in respect of the damage. In September 1978 the insurance company retained O to advise them as to the cause of and remedy for the damage. In early 1980 they reported back that the property needed partial underpinning and that other underpinning and works to the foundations were not necessary. L considered this on behalf of H and were assumed by the court to have approved it. On 3 September 1980 H entered agreement with P to carry out work supervised by O and L and the works were completed in 1981. In May 1983 further physical damage developed and continued so that the house lost structural stability. The 1980/81 works were not affected but further remedial works were needed consisting of underpinning the whole house, creating a suspended floor and further anti-heave precautions. In 19
650			_aDUTY OF CARE
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c33854 _d33854