2 South West Building & Construction

SOUTH WEST

January 2010

BUILDING &

CONSTRUCTION

Tavistock Newspapers Ltd, 14 Brook Street, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 0HE. Tel: 01822 613666 Fax: 01822 618222

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

■ The Lighthouse Club - Page 4 ■ Competition winner - Page 5 ■ We’re on the worldwide web - Page 6 ■ Calendar for 2010 - Pages 16-17 ■ Spotlight on Cornwall - Page 20 ■ RM Builders and Contractors - Page 22 ■ Firm celebrates centenary - Page 30

CAPTIONS FOR MAIN FRONT PAGE PICTURES: Top. Mike

Wye & Associates run special training courses. This month we announce the winner of our competition which has a first prize of two places on a training course. See page 5. Below, clockwise from top left: A house under construction using frames from Timber Frames (West) UK, see page 5; a conservatory from GW

Glass, see advertisement on page 3; South West Building &

Construction magazine is now on the internet, see page 6; and a

house built by RM Builders, see feature starting on page 22.

Quote of the month

‘

I don’t like men who blow-dry their hair -

Comedian Jack Dee.

STEPHEN HOMER

Keep your clients in the picture

Stephen Homer, a former chairman of the CIC South West (Devon & Cornwall), highlights a recent case.

READERS may be interested in a recent High Court case, in which it was held that a firm of architects were held to have committed fraudulent misrepresentation by not revealing the true composition of its project team. Fitzroy Robinson was engaged by the three defendant companies as the architect to develop buildings in London’s Piccadilly into a private members’ club and Mentmore Towers in Buckinghamshire into a country house hotel. Mr Blake was the director of

How you can contact us

EDITORIAL Editor: Paul White Main contributor: Andrew Townsend

Paul White Communications PO Box 40, Callington, PL18 9WB ADVERTISING:

Judith Jewell Tel/Fax 01837 658941 E-mail judithjewell@btinternet.com

MAILING LIST

If you have a change for our mailing list Tel 01822 615007 Fax 01822 618971

E-mail swbmail@internet-today.co.uk

’

Fitzroy Robinson and was responsible for putting together the bid documents. Mr Blake was also involved in all the pre- contract meetings. The defendant companies were told by the CEO of Fitzroy Robinson that Mr Blake would be the team leader of the project throughout. Work started on both projects in March 2006 and completion was scheduled for May 2009. On March 17, 2006, Mr Blake resigned from Fitzroy Robinson and began working his one-year notice period. Fitzroy Robinson did not inform the defendant companies of Mr Blake’s resignation until November 2006. Planning permission was delayed from December 2006 until November 2007, with the defendant companies contending that this was the fault of Fitzroy Robinson.

In June 2007, the defendant companies had stopped paying Fitzroy Robinson the fees payable under the three contracts, so in April and May 2008, Fitzroy Robinson issued proceedings for over £1 million in unpaid fees. The defendant companies responded that Fitzroy Robinson’s claims had to be adjusted to reflect the delayed progress of the projects. The defendant companies argued that they had suffered loss as a result

of the delay that Mr Blake’s resignation had caused.

The defendant companies also counterclaimed that they had been fraudulently misled into engaging Fitzroy Robinson. This was based on Fitzroy Robinson’s conduct in concealing the resignation of Mr Blake. Mr Justice Coulson refused to accept the evidence of Fitzroy Robinson’s CEO and held that Fitzroy Robinson’s failure to correct the representation of Mr Blake’s continuous involvement throughout the project was an actionable misrepresentation. The fact that it had been made knowingly and deliberately, without an honest belief in its truth meant that it was therefore fraudulent. However, even though it could be said that the defendant companies would not have entered into the contracts if not for this misrepresentation, they had failed to show that Mr Blake’s resignation caused any delay to the project. Therefore that part of the defendant companies’ counterclaim was likely to be quite modest.

What does this case mean

for you? This case serves as a warning to those bidding for work with their most impressive team and not subsequently using that team for the work won. In light of this decision, it is advisable that any changes to personnel named in the contract or at the pre-contract stage are notified in writing to the employer to avoid potential liability for misrepresentation, fraud or breach of contract. However, as in this case, it

may prove difficult in practice to show and quantify losses arising from the departure of an individual from a professional project team. If anyone has any queries arising from this article, I can be contacted via email at s.homer@ashfords.co.uk.

Environment Topics - see page 26

DISCLAIMER: The CIC SW (Devon & Cornwall) will not accept any responsibility for any loss occasional to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of the material included in this publication. 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