Cunningham (t/a Urban Developments) v Buckley and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 April 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWCA Civ 224 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 04 April 2017 |
[2017] EWCA Civ 224
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Longmore and The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lewison
The first appellant did not appear and was not represented
Mr Philip Williams & Mr Thomas Chacko (instructed by Railton Law) appeared for the second appellant
Mr Richard Bradley (instructed by Allington Hughes) appeared for the respondent
[1] This appeal from His Honour Judge Hughes sitting in Mold County Court concerns a building project at a property in Chester, 15 Hough Green. In 2004 there was an application for planning permission made by Amour Properties that would allow the existing building to be converted into two separate semi-detached residential premises. There would also be a development of eight new apartments in the orchard.
[2] Planning permission was granted and the building was divided. Work was completed on one half of the divided property on 27th November 2006. This case is about the other half of the building which became known as Lumley House. I will call it “the property”. The developer then went into liquidation and did not complete the works on the property.
[3] On 16th August 2010 the defendants bought the property for £375,000. The claimant builder, Mr Nathan Cunningham, knew Ms Milner's father. Mr Cunningham was asked by Ms Milner and Mr Buckley (the defendants) to look over the property prior to purchase. In summer 2010 there was a site visit with the claimant, the defendants and estate agents. The defendants wanted the claimant's advice about the cost of completing work to the building. There was no written agreement.
[4] On 10th September 2010 the claimant was asked to obtain steel and arrange for certain work to be done. The request was made by text. On 14th September 2010 the claimant sent an initial quote for £28,167 excluding VAT. The steel was then charged separately at a cost of £7,050. In due course, as the judge held, there was an agreed price of £35,510 plus VAT at the applicable rate, for the work which Mr Cunningham had agreed to do.
[5] There were then a number of additional items of work requested from the claimant, who subsequently created four invoices totalling £57,000, but which the judge assessed at £37,750. The defendants paid only part of the sum Mr Cunningham said was due and counterclaimed for defective work which required to be remedied. The judge assessed that at £12,758. Other deductions brought the total figure due to Mr Cunningham to £44,018, to which VAT had to be added at whatever was the applicable rate.
[6] The judge had to decide a great number of matters; permission has been granted to the defendants to appeal on two points only, first the judge's disallowance of the cost of “rectifying bi-folding doors” as counterclaimed and secondly the right rate for VAT. There is also one ground of cross-appeal for which permission has been given.
[7] The judge considered the evidence of Mr Cunningham and said that he was “straightforward and truthful”. Mr Cunningham's account was that, before he instructed solicitors to recover sums due to him, the defendants never...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oleh Humnyntskyi v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...NHS Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 47 [2014] 1 WLR 3103 per Beatson LJ at [67]. 254 In R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Lord Chancellor [2017] EWCA Civ 224 [2017] 4 WLR 92 Beatson LJ set out a non-exhaustive list of factors that are relevant to the content of the fairness requirement: “The fa......
-
HS v Immigration Appeals Tribunal
...the case of Regina (Howard League for Penal Reform and another) v Lord Chancellor (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2017] EWCA Civ 224, it was held that in determining whether the removal of legal aid from any category caused inherent or systemic unfairness depended i. Th......
-
Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Frank a Smart & Son Ltd
...Organisatie v Staatssecretaris van Financien (C-515/07) [2009] ECR I-839distinguished, Odvolací Finanční Ředitelství v Baštová (C-432/15) [2017] BVC 28explained and Customs and Excise Commissioners v Midland Bank plc (C-98/98) [2000] ECR I-4177, Abbey National plc v Customs and Excise Commi......
-
Defects
...at [61], per edmund Leow JC; Ellis’s Town House Pty Ltd v Botan Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 20 at [40], per Gleeson JA; Cunningham v Buckley [2017] eWCA Civ 224 at [22], per Longmore LJ. Compare Imodco Ltd v Wimpey Major Projects Ltd (1987) 40 BLR 1 at 19, per Glidewell LJ, at 25, per Slade LJ; an......