ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

In 1997 Darren Horton was a chippie employed by Taplin Contracts to convert offices into a pub. Horton worked off a wheeled scaffold tower and one day was seriously injured when the tower fell over.

Mr. Horton sued Taplin for breaches of the Provisions and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992. For good measure, he threw in the Construction (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 - Unsafe place of work. Horton also claimed he didn't know how the tower had fallen over.

The Recorder rejected the claim as he had spotted that in a statement in 1998 Mr Horton had said he had been in a fight with a work colleague known as 'W' who "…in a rage of temper and beyond belief had pushed the scaffold over".

The Court of Appeal agreed. Horton had not presented any evidence that the tower had been unstable, so his claim failed.

Moral: Fighting on sites reduces your rights

Case: Darren Joseph Horton v Taplin Contracts Ltd. Court of Appeal November 8 2002.

Out with the Inn crowd
How a hotel developer fell foul of its fuzzy notices

Six Continents Hotels (UK) Limited (SCL) was to be the operator and manager of a new Crowne Plaza Hotel, owned by Blackfriars Hotels Limited (BHL) and developed by Embankment Place Hotels (EPH).

EPH's job was to organise the design, obtain consents and employ the contractor. However, BHL varied the works because it didn't like the interior design. The new designs subsequently changed all the major works packages and caused severe delays.

The Completion Date was dependent on both a Statement of Practical Completion, and a Certificate of Operability being issued. Both sides agreed on the first, but there was no Certificate of Operability.

EPH had to give SCL eight weeks' notice to start the operability checking process. SCL argued that the Notice issued was invalid because it had been wrongly addressed. The judge rejected this because the incorrect address had not prevented receipt, but did agree that EPH's notice had not mentioned an eight-week period or an estimated Practical Completion date. The notices were deficient and EPH's argument failed.

Meanwhile, EPH remains unpaid.

Moral: Write what the contract says you should write in any notices.

Case: Embankment Place Hotels (Blackfriars) Limited v Blackfriars Hotels Limited (formerly Foray 1068 Limited) and Six Continents Hotels (UK) Limited (formerly Holiday Inns (UK) Limited).

A truly moving experience
Home sweet home... builders go bust and solicitors cut corners

In 1993 the Rickards wanted a new house. They instructed solicitors to act for them before buying a plot of land and engaging a builder. But when they moved in they discovered the house was so full of faults it was effectively worthless. No problem, they thought, we're covered by the NHBC. But when the solicitors wrote to the NHBC, the NHBC replied that the builder, a Mr. Rogers, had ceased to be NHBC-registered before he even started building the Rickards' house! Surprise, surprise, the NHBC would not accept liability.

The Rickards sued the solicitors, aruing that the solicitors were liable. The court agreed, but as the solicitors had not caused any financial loss, awarded no damages.

The Rickards subsequently took their case to the Appeal Court, which decided that the solicitors had indeed caused the loss. The solicitors just hadn't confirmed that the Rickard's new house was covered. (Even the building society had thought the Certificate was in place.)

Moral: Paperwork before you pay.

Case: Steven Henry Rickards and Marlene Rickards v (1) Russell Jones (2) John Dyer and (3) Maldwyn Watts. Court of Appeal July 29, 2002.

Water way to pay
Converting old commercial blocks proved no pipe dream

Hampstead Homes was converting two ex-commercial premises into 109 apartments, adding two floors to one block and one to the other. Both blocks had been connected to main water and sewers. No new sewer services were needed externally but the old water mains were replaced by two 125mm mains.

Hampstead applied to Thames Water for service pipe connections. Thames zapped back a 'design estimate' of £52,989.88, later reduced to £42,790.32.

Hampstead argued that there were still only two buildings, both of which always had mains water and sewerage. These were 'premises' within the meaning of Section 146(2) of the Water Act 1991, so Thames couldn't make the charges stick.

Thames argued that as the flats didn't exist before the conversion, the premises were never previously connected - and that it wasn't just the connection, it was also its infrastructure requirements that justified the charges. There wasn't even any need to prove increased flow.

The court agreed with Thames Water and allowed it to make its connection charges to Hampstead.

Moral: Changing the use of buildings creates new supply premises

Case: Thames Water Utilities Limited v Hampstead Homes (London) Limited - Court of Appeal October 8, 2002.