Turf wars - scoping the limitations of a professional’s obligations when working for free
Burgess & Anor v Lejonvarn [2018] EWHC
Giles Tagg
We previously commented on this dispute in April 2017 when the Court of Appeal confirmed in declaratory proceedings that a duty of care could arise without a contract and where professional assistance was provided gratis - Formal Borders? Landscaping the Duty of Care in the absence of contract. A claim in negligence against Ms Lejonvarn (“the Defendant”) a professional (non-UK practising) architect followed for in excess of £200,000. This article considers the Technology and Construction Court’s decision on the merits of the matter. The ruling provides comfort to professionals who have previously given ad-hoc advice informally without a formal contract. It also provides some useful guidance for architects and contract administrators as to what the law expects their supervisory duties to entail, particularly where third party contractors have failed to meet the standards to be expected.
Background Mr and Mrs Burgess (“the Claimants”) wished to landscape their garden (“the Garden Project”) and initially instructed a well-known landscaper, Mark Enright. Mr Enright was not cheap and quoted £150,000 plus VAT for the works. The Defendant worked in a firm of architects and, previously having had a close relationship with the Claimants (she was a neighbour), became involved on the basis that she would be able to complete the Garden Project using Mr Enright’s designs with her own team and at a lower price (£130,000 plus VAT). The Defendant did not charge for her involvement and assisted on the Garden Project between 6 March 2013 and 9 July 2013. During this period the Defendant found a suitable contractor, prepared a budget, received applications for payment from the contractor, advised and directed the Claimants in respect of payments and attended site on (at least) 10 occasions. The Defendant also made a number of revisions to the original design. The Defendant and Claimants fell out on 9 July 2013 once Mrs Burgess became aware of the £130,000 plus VAT figure. Although the Defendant ceased to have any involvement with the project, the Claimants continued to use the Defendant’s suggested contractor, ultimately paying them £168,370.33. The Claimants subsequently re-instructed Mr Enright to carry out ‘remedial works’ for which he charged a further £181,065. Additional costs of £9,783.20 were incurred in respect of professional fees and repairs to a damaged bollard. The total cost of the work was £369,288. The Claim The Claimants sought damages from the