Bagot v Stevens Scanlan & Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1964 |
| Date | 1964 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Negligence - Tort or breach of contract - Architect - Whether liable to client in tort - Test of status relationship - Limitation of action. - Architect - Negligence - Tort, whether liable in - Duty to client - Negligence - Whether breach of contract or tortious or both. - Limitation of Action - Negligence - Contract, breach of - Architect - Failure to use reasonable care and skill - Whether liable to client in tort or contract - Date time begins to run -
By a building contract entered into in March, 1955, between the plaintiff, the owner or lessee of premises, and the defendants, who were architects, the defendants were to supervise the laying of a drainage system on the plaintiff's land, such supervision to continue until February, 1957, and thereafter their duties thereunder ceased whether performed or not. On April 2, 1963, the plaintiff issued a writ alleging in the statement of claim that the defendants had failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in effecting their supervisory duties under the contract, with the result that several of the pipes comprised in the drainage system broke or cracked, considerable quantities of water escaped, and damage was caused thereby. The defendants alleged that the plaintiff's claim was barred by virtue of section 2 of the Limitation Act, 1939.F1 The defendants, while not admitting the occurrence of any damage, admitted that if it occurred it had done so after April 2, 1957, while the plaintiff admitted that the defendants' duty of supervision had ceased before that date. On the preliminary issue whether time under the Limitation Act, 1939, ran from the date of the last act of negligence alleged, or the date when damage first occurred, the plaintiff conceding that, if the cause of action was founded solely on simple contract, it had arisen in February, 1957, when the defendants broke their warranty to use reasonable skill and care in the supervision of the contract, so that the action would be statute barred but contending, that the cause of action was founded on negligence, or, alternatively, on both contract and tort:—
Held, that the relationship creating the duty of the defendants to exercise reasonable skill and care arose out of contract alone, and that such a relationship was not a status relationship under which the duty existed by virtue of contract and yet independently of it which arose in such cases as master and servant, common carrier, innkeeper, or bailor and bailee. Accordingly, the action was statute barred and must be dismissed.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE.
In March, 1955, the plaintiff, Oliver Robin Bagot, the owner or lessee of premises in London, entered into a contract with the defendants, Stevens Scanlan & Co. of Buckingham Gate, London, who were architects. By the terms of that contract the defendants were to supervise until February, 1957, certain building works which were to be effected, and after that date the defendants' duties under the contract ceased, whether or not well performed. On April 2, 1963, the plaintiff issued a writ against the defendants and in his statement of claim alleged that the defendants had failed to use reasonable care and skill in the supervision of the laying of the drainage works. Further the plaintiff alleged that
“in or about the end of 1961 as a result of all or one or more of the matters referred to, several of the pipes comprised in the drainage system broke or cracked, considerable quantities of water escaped therefrom, the ground surrounding the pipes became waterlogged, severe settlement of ail or part of the premises occurred and the asphalt covering the forecourt was injured.”
Further he alleged:
“By reason of all or one or more of the matters referred to the defendants were guilty of professional negligence and in breach of their duty to the plaintiff under their contract the plaintiff has suffered damage.”
The defendants delivered a defence in which they claimed that the plaintiff's claim was barred by virtue of the Limitation Act, 1939. A preliminary issue of law was set down
in the light of the admissions“whether time under the Limitation Act, 1939, runs from the date of the last act of negligence alleged or the date when damage first occurred”
“1. The defendants, while not admitting that any damage occurred admit that if such damage did occur it occurred after April 2, 1957,” and “2. The plaintiff admits that the defendants' duty of supervision ceased before April 2, 1957.”
Malcolm Spence for the plaintiff.
Peter Slot for the defendant.
The following cases, in addition to those referred to in the judgment, were cited in argument: Cartledge v. E. Jopling & Sons Ltd.F2; Battley v. FaulknerF3; Columbus Co. v. ClowesF4; Jackson v. Mayfair Window Cleaning Co.F5; Candler v. Crane, Christmas & Co.F6
DIPLOCK L.J. This matter comes before me on a preliminary point of law in an action brought by the plaintiff against Stevens Scanlan and Co., who are architects, the plaintiff being the owner or lessee of some premises in London. The action is brought against the architects in respect of a breach of their duty to carry out with reasonable care and skill the supervising of a building contract which was entered into in March, 1955. The supervision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sparham-Souter v Town and Country Developments (Essex) Ltd
...later. Here there was no damage to any purchaser of the house until it began to sink and cracks appeared. 12And again: What about Bagot v. Stevens Scanlon & Co. (1966) Queen's Bench 197, when Lord Justice Diplock expressed the view that the damage occurred "when the drains were improperly b......
-
Midland Bank Trust Company Ltd v Hett, Stubbs & Kemp
...434, H.L.(E.) applied. Groom v. Crocker [1939] 1 K.B. 194, C.A.;Clark v. Kirby-Smith [1964] Ch. 506;Bagot v. Stevens Scanlan & Co. Ltd. [1966] 1 Q.B. 197 andCook v. Swinfen [1967] 1 W.L.R. 457, C.A. not followed. Heywood v. Wellers [1976] Q.B. 446, C.A. considered. (3) That since the neglig......
-
Batty v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd
...on his reading of a passage in the judgment of Lord Justice Diplock (as he then was), sitting as a judge of first instance, in Bagot v. Stevens Scanlan & Co. Ltd. (1966) 1 Queen's Bench 197 The learned judge, at page 50/G of the transcript of his judgment, having cited that case, went on to......
-
Bowes v. Edmonton (City) et al., 2003 ABQB 492
...as soon as the house was constructed. The home owner was, and here I paraphrase Lord Diplock in Bagot v. Stevens, Scanlan & Co. , [1964] 3 All E.R. 577 (Q.B.), at 579, damaged when he was landed with property which had bad foundations when he ought to have been provided with property wh......
-
Litigation
...of an order against another person or property: Letang v Cooper [1965] QB 232 at 242, per Diplock LJ; Bagot v Stevens Scanlan & Co Ltd [1966] 1 QB 197 at 202–203, per Diplock LJ; Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234 at 245, per Wilson J; Bovis Construction (South-Eastern) ......
-
Concurrent Duties
...obligation to exercise careand skill,see Jarvis vMoy, Davies, Smith, Vandervell & Co [1936] 1 KB 399 (CA); Bagot vStevens Scanlon&CoLtd[1966] 1 QB 197 (QB); Robinson vJones n25above.SeealsoAryeh Ehrentreu vIGIndex Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 79 at [46], in which the court rejected the submissio......
-
Property damage and the impecuniosity factor in commonwealth jurisdictions
...have been discovered; London Congregational Union Inc v Harriss * Harriss (a firm) [1985] 1 All E R35; Bagot v Stevens Scanlan *Co [ 1964] 3 All E R 577, at 579. 8 [1980] 1 WLR 433. 9 At 451; London Congregational Union Inc v Harriss *Harriss(afirm) [1985] 1 All E R 35; Bevan Investments Lt......