Philip Eyre
May 2001
A paper based on the first prize winning entry in the Millennium Hudson Prize Competition, presented to the Society of Construction Law in London on 1st May 2001.
The author looks at the extent to which the House of Lords’ decision in this case clarified and developed the law relating to third party loss in the context of contemporary commercial practice in the construction industry. The argument was that Panatown, who had entered into a building contract with McAlpine, were not entitled to recover substantial damages under the contract because they had no proprietary interest in the land or building and had suffered no loss, since the site was owned by a sister company. He considers whether the House of Lords was successful in its task of reaching a solution which was in accordance with principle and did practical justice between the parties, without leaving too great a legacy of problems for the future.
Introduction – Building owners – The impact of warranties on underlying building contracts – The ‘broader ground’ – The ‘narrow ground’ – Contracts (ights of Third Parties) Act 1999 – Conclusion.
The author:. Philip Eyre LLB (Hons), MICS is an associate solicitor with Glovers, solicitors, in London.
Text 11 pages.
PDF file size: 82k