In Dakin v Lee [1916] 1 KB 566, a builder
sued for payment for works done to a defendant’s
house. The builder was held entitled to recover
the payment, less an appropriate deduction
for the cost of remedial works. Duquemin Ltd
v Raymond Slater [1993] 65 BLR 124 was
another case in which the doctrine was applied.
There, a contractor carried out refurbishment
and extension works. The arbitrator awarded
the employer a larger sum by way of abatement
for defects than the value of the contractor’s
claim. The court decided that the arbitrator
had acted beyond his jurisdiction, and that the
greatest possible abatement was to reduce the
contractor’s claim to zero.
In Mellowes Archital Ltd v Bell Projects Ltd
[1997] 87 BLR 26, a sub-contractor sought
summary judgment for sums due on an interim
application. The Court of Appeal held that the main
contractor was not entitled to use its delay claim
as abatement and the sub-contractor was granted
summary judgment. Buxton LJ reviewed the law of
abatement at length in coming to such a holding.
He said that the measure of abatement must be
limited to the difference in value of the thing itself.
The cost of repairing damage to anything else
other than the thing itself is not recoverable.
ARE INTERIM CERTIFICATES SPECIAL?
In Dawnays v Minter [1971] 1 WLR 1205, Lord
Denning MR made some general observations,
which were not essential to the decision in the
case, and vW&RF