Stephen Clarke’s Case notes


Illustration: Jason Ford


people working together to engage with each other in a non-work environment. This is helpful as often they can see other people’s true personalities come out.” Davidson adds: “Team building can provide for an innovative and fun/informal way to communicate the importance of certain key business skills such as communication, time-keeping, teamwork and decision- making. And the opportunity for staff and management to interact and communicate while not in the pressured environment of the work place.” Peter Jacobs, managing director of


Challenge in the Lake District in June. He says the very fragmented and competitive nature of construction, which draws many different professions together, makes team building exercises vital. Tempting though it may be to cut back on whilst money is tight, Redfern’s view is that it’s never been more important to instill team spirit and get everyone working as a cohesive unit as pressure increases to boost efficiency. Taylor Wimpey regional managers are encouraged to organise activities at a local level that bring different parts of the business together. Five a-side football and It’s a Knockout-style tournaments are favourites at the house builder. But successful team building doesn’t


have to be about physical education. At Mount Anvil, ranked 38th in the Sunday Times Best Small Companies to Work For 2012 listing, groups have competed to produce the best newspaper — complete with front-page scoop and cartoon. Mount Anvil sales director Brian De’ath often organises the company training days that include team building exercises. He says it is essential that everyone takes part. “Doing something wacky brings people together and it makes communication across the company better. “People get to appreciate the problem- solving skills that other people have in the business that they may have little contact with. People often get stereotyped, but when you do something like this, it can show people in a different light.” Greg Davidson, who runs a team building company called Spy Games, agrees: “It provides an opportunity for


Morgan Sindall London and senior vice president of the CIOB, stages team building activities for teams coming together on new projects as a way of breaking down barriers. This can involve anything from cooking competitions to indoor golf. “One of our clients is a shooting fan, so we’re about to organise an indoor shooting event,” says Jacobs.


Team building extravaganzas Davidson says for team building to work it is vital to choose the right kind of event to suit those taking part — and then matching an activity to a budget. He has run team building extravaganzas for big corporates that have involved staff in James Bond-type scenarios, or following in the footsteps of George Clooney and Brad Pitt staging Ocean’s Eleven-style bank vault heists. But he’s also staged code-breaking exercises for housing associations spending £15 per head too. For others, though, team building comes


with everyday actions too. “All that stuff, like taking part in the Three Peaks Challenge, is the icing on the cake. It’s good behaviour and we’d certainly support it,” says David Chambers chairman of Lincoln-based Lindum. The £86m turnover a year firm is 18th in the Sunday Times Best 100 Companies To Work For list — the best placed firm in the industry. “I’m passionate about building teams,


that’s what contracting is all about. But team building, for us, is about breaking down the hierarchies that exist in the industry. It starts with everyone respecting everyone else top to bottom. It’s about not blaming someone when things go wrong, but working out how we can put it right. It’s about good manners, no one going first class, or directors getting parking spaces — and that starts with me.”


Ms S Jones and Ms R Lovegrove v Mr L Ruth and Mrs K Ruth Court of Appeal 12 July 2011


Ms Jones and Ms Lovegrove (the claimants) bought a terraced house in Nottingham. Mr and Mrs Ruth (the Ruths) owned the next two houses in the terrace and were apparently unhappy that these were two-storey houses, whereas the claimants’ property was a three-storey house. To rectify this, the Ruths embarked on a building project to create a new third storey, a larger kitchen and a rebuilt garage for each of their two properties. The building works, which the


appeal court judges later said should have taken a year, were started in May 2002 and not completed until March 2010. The claimants alleged that, during the course of this period, they suffered nuisance (including excessive, persistent noise and vibration which caused cracking to their walls); trespass (including the storage of building materials and the erection of scaffolding in their rear garden and holes being punched in their gable wall for the insertion of purlins); and a long campaign of harassment. This harassment included the damage and partial demolition of a boundary wall owned by them, rubbish persistently thrown into their garden and what is described as “anti-social behaviour”. The Ruths also ignored


numerous requests to reduce noise to reasonable levels, refused to provide any information regarding the programme of the building works and engaged in a campaign of intimidation. The claimants said this


behaviour led to anxiety and Stephen Clarke’s analysis


This is an interesting case because the laws of nuisance, trespass and harassment in the context of construction works have only rarely been considered at the rarefied level of the Technology and Construction Court. All building projects will


involve neighbours in some “nuisance”. The law recognises that there will be noise, dust and vibration, but it requires that construction operations need to be “reasonably carried on and all proper and reasonable steps need to be taken to ensure that no undue inconvenience is caused to neighbours”. That was definitely not the case here. Trespass in this case largely means what it says, and clearly,


the fact that no consent was obtained in regards to the scaffolding and/or the works on the claimants’ wall meant that this was easily proven. Harassment is defined as


“persistent tormenting or irritation of the victim … to cause a person distress”. It is deliberate conduct that the guilty party should know will have an effect on the other and the judges held that that is what happened here. This case is a warning that the


courts will award substantial damages against those who undertake building works without the relevant consents and who completely ignore those whose lives are being affected by the works.


Stephen Clarke is national head of construction law at Clarke Willmott. Tel: 0845 209 1303; email: stephen.clarke@clarkewillmott.com


CONSTRUCTION MANAGER | APRIL 2012 | 27


depression and that this in turn led to severe back pain which necessitated physiotherapy, counselling and other treatment. As a result, Ms Jones had to stop work for five years. The judge in the original hearing in the Technology and Construction Court accepted the majority of the evidence against the Ruths and ordered them to pay £45,000 damages for trespass, and £30,000 for loss of enjoyment. However, he did not give a cogent ruling on the loss of earnings and general damages for harassment that were claimed. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the majority of the original decision. The good news for the Ruths was that the damages for trespass were reduced from £45,000 to £15,000. However, the claimants were


awarded general damages for harassment of £28,750 and £115,000 for the personal injury claim. The main legal point was that it was not necessary for the personal injury to be reasonably “foreseeable” for a claimant to recover damages as a result of harassment.


The claimants alleged that, during the course of this period, they suffered nuisance, trespass, and a long campaign of harassment


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56