Construction - 1849- 1899
Law relating to construction, building law and industry. Standard JCT contracts, etc
The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database.
lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.
This page lists 2 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.
|Walter Wardle -v- The Very Reverend John Bethune  EngR 46; (1871) 8 Moo PC NS 223; (1871) 17 ER 296|
|20 Nov 1871
|Article 1688 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada enacts that, ‘I If a building perish in the whole or in part within ten years, from a defect in construction, or even from the unfavourable nature of the ground, the Architect superintending the work and the Builder are jointly and severally liable for the loss.” Such Article held to be declaratory of the law of Lower Canada, as it existed before the promulgation of the Code. A Builder, before the passing of the Code, contracted to execute, in a workmanlike manner, all the work requisite to be done in building and completing Christ Church Cathedral, in Lower Canada, according to the plans and drawings made by an Architect, upon foundations already made and completed by a previous Builder, under the direction of his Employer’s Architect, the expense of which foundations the contract stipulated should be estimated and allowed for. The Builder erected the Cathedral in strict conformity with the contract, under the direction of the Architect, and in a workmanlike manner; but the Tower of the Cathedral, shortly after it was erected, and before the works were completed, sunk, and considerable damage was done. The cause of the sinking was found to be the insufficiency of the foundations, as planned by the original Architect, and constructed by the former Builder. This defect, though not patent, might have been discovered by the Builder of the Cathedral, before making the contract : Held (affirming the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench to Lower Canada), in an action by the Builder against his employer (the Employer claiming to deduct from the contract price agreed to be paid to the Builder, the amount of his charge for repairing the damages caused to the building by the sinking of the Tower, through the insufficiency of the foundations) that the Employer was entitled to make the deduction, as the Builder was responsible for the defect in the foundations, and was not freed from liability either by acting under the directions of his Employer's Architect, or by reason of the defective foundations being the work of the preceding Builder. The decision in the case of Brown v. Laurie adopted.|
|[ Commonlii ]|
|Harrison -v- Southwark & Vauxhall Water Company  2 Ch 409|
|A claim was made for damages for nuisance from construction works. Held: The obligations of the defendant company in respect of the sinking of the shaft were neither greater nor less than those of a private person; and that a private person would not, in similar circumstances, be held to have created a legal nuisance by reason of the annoyance caused to his neighbours in the thumping for the purpose of sinking the shaft, unless it could be shown that he had neglected to take all reasonable precautions for mitigating the annoyance to his neighbours.|