Year: 1989
Type: article
Abstract: Between 1963 and 1965 Wates were employed to build a block of flats on land owned by the Church Commissioners.Wates subcontracted plastering work to Hitchens.Hitchens failed to follow the manufacturer's instructions in applying the plaster, and as a result, in the early 1980s, plaster started falling off the walls.A considerable amount of remedial work was needed to put matters right.In 1965, D. & F. Estates acquired the block of flats on a long lease from the Commissioners; Mr and Mrs. Tillman, who controlled D. & F. Estates, occupied one of the flats, apparently under licence.The company sued Wates for the cost of remedial work and "prospective loss of rent" while the work was carried out, and the Tillmans claimed damages for disturbance.The House of Lords decided, unsurprisingly, that the company's claims could not succeed.'The loss suffered was purely economic, arising out of a mere defect of quality which presented no danger to the health or safety of persons and no risk of damage to property other than the plasterwork itself, which was the defective item.Furthermore, on its facts, the case did not satisfy the very stringent requirements for recovery for such loss laid down in Junior Books Ltd v. Veitchi Co. Ltd.' The practical importance of the case lies in the fact that tenants under commercial leases are increasingly being required to accept stringent repairing obligations: and the fact that latent defects insurance is, as yet, relatively difficult to obtain in Britain.'The real legal interest of the case, however, lies not in the actual decision but in some of the wideranging comments made by Lord Bridge of Harwich and Lord Oliver of Aylmerton.In general terms, their Lordships have taken a further large step in the current process of contraction in the tort of negligence, at least so far as liability for economic loss is concerned.The judgments also contain important indications of the view which their Lordships take of the proper function of the courts in developing the law of tort. DOCTRINAL POINTS 1 . The reqiiirement of dumage to persoti or propertyThe most important general point emerging from the case is that loss arising from the acquisition of defective premises or chattels will in future be recoverable in tort from the builder of the premises or the manufacturer of the chattel only if it consists of 1988 3 W.L.R. 36X.
Source: Modern Law Review
Author: Peter Cane
Institution: University of Oxford
Language: English
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2016348374