A contractor has lost a court case in which it claimed it was not contractually responsible for completing technical designs on a dairy scheme.
The court found in favour of client Workman Properties Ltd (WPL) in a case that sought to clarify the design obligations under a construction contract with ADI Building & Refurbishment Ltd (ADI).
The ruling by Judge Stephen Davies on 15 October centred on whether WPL had warranted the completion design to RIBA Stage 4 under an amended Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) 2016 Design and Build contract.
Background of the dispute
The case originated from a contract signed on 6 January 2022, between WPL and ADI for an extensive project to expand facilities at Cotteswold Dairy in Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire.
Judge Davies said: “The first fundamental issue was ‘what design work had, and had not, been done at the time the contract was entered into and ADI took over that design’.”
The contract entailed works including new cold storage and drainage systems. At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of WPL’s design responsibilities under the JCT contract.
Specifically this was whether WPL had assured ADI that the design had been completed to RIBA Stage 4 or BSRIA Stage 4(i), which pertains to technical and building services designs.
ADI argued that WPL had warranted the completion of these design stages before ADI took over.
However, WPL contended that while certain design elements were provided, the JCT contract stipulated that ADI would be “fully responsible for the complete design, construction, and completion” of the works.
When the project’s design needs exceeded initial expectations, ADI raised concerns about potential breaches by WPL, claiming that unfinished designs imposed additional time and costs on ADI.
The adjudication process
The dispute first went to adjudication, where ADI argued that WPL’s failure to provide completed designs constituted a breach of contract.
In September 2023, the adjudicator, Christopher Hough, ruled partially in ADI’s favour, determining that the Employer’s Requirements indeed warranted that certain design elements had been completed to RIBA Stage 4 and BSRIA Stage 4(i).
He further concluded that ADI could claim damages due to WPL’s failure to meet these requirements.
However, WPL challenged this finding, asserting that Hough’s interpretation of the design responsibilities was incorrect and exceeded his jurisdiction.
Judge Davies’ findings
Technology and Construction Court judge Davies said that the JCT contract and Employer’s Requirements consistently placed “complete design responsibility” on ADI, regardless of whether WPL provided designs at certain stages. According to the judgement, the contract’s language underscored ADI’s obligation to assume full control over the project’s design elements, affirming WPL’s interpretation.
He said: “I am satisfied that the defendant did have the contractual responsibility to satisfy itself that what was in the existing design was sufficient in all respects as, indeed, it appeared to accept by what it stated in its own tender.
“If it decided simply to accept that the consultants had done what they had said that they had done, then that was at their own risk and, in any event, was something which they were able to protect against by enforcing the novated contracts against those consultants.”
Judge Davies concluded: “I am therefore satisfied that the claimant’s case is to be preferred to that of the defendant.”
