Rendlesham Estates Plc & Ors v Barr Ltd
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR. JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART
Areas of Law
- Construction Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves the owners of 120 apartments suing Barr for construction defects under the Defective Premises Act 1972. Despite Barr's assertion that they constructed within acceptable tolerances and maintenance issues were due to resident misuse, the court found Barr liable for the poor quality work and unfit conditions. The necessary remedial actions included extensive repairs to address water ingress, mold, inadequate insulation, and flawed internal finishes. Each defective element was scrutinized to determine its impact on the habitability of the apartments.
This is a claim by the owners of 120 apartments in two apartment blocks in Concord Street, Leeds. The Claimants sue the Defendant (“Barr”) who built the development. The two blocks were built between 2003 and 2006, as part of one development whose stated object was to provide high quality apartments for young professionals. Many of the apartments were sold off-plan. There are 171 apartments all told, but for various reasons only 120 of them now remain the subject of this litigation.
Unfortunately, the tenders that were initially obtained by the developers, City Wall Limited (“CWC”), came in at significantly more than CWC’s budget.
CWC was substantially reliant on the Royal Bank of Scotland for financial support and had limited resources of its own.
Barr, a construction company based in Scotland, had decided to enter the market for the construction of residential property in England and indicated that it would be prepared to build the development for a price that was within CWC’s budget. However, it made it clear that this would involve making significant reductions to the quality of the finishes. Also Barr proposed to use a steel frame instead of the concrete frame on which previous designs had been based.
CWC accepted Barr’s tender. Barr insisted on having a fairly free hand to make the necessary changes to the specification, some of which had to be negotiated with the planning department of the City Council.
The project did not go smoothly. Barr had problems with many of its subcontractors, some of whom were replaced more than once. Practical completion of the South block was achieved in July 2005 and of the North block in January 2006.
When the purchasers moved into their apartments they were very taken aback by what they found. Even one of Barr’s own witnesses described the buildings as looking like council blocks from the 1960s. There were problems from the outset. Quite apart from the poor quality of the finishes to the common parts, many of the residents found when, or soon after, they moved in that the intercom system did not work properly and that the covered walkways would flood in heavy rain.
Within two or three years numerous additional problems had begun to manifest themselves. There were leaks above the walkway on the fifth floors, leaks from the penthouse balconies into the flats below, leaks into the voids above the walkway soffits, the appearance of mould and condensation in a number of apartments and in the common parts and, in a g