Property Update — February 2014: misrepresentation claims cannot be adjudicated
By Adele Parsons
In the case of Hillcrest Homes Ltd v Beresford and Curbishley Ltd (February 2014), the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decided that claims that had been advanced in negligent misstatement and misrepresentation could not be adjudicated.
Hillcrest was a property developer. It entered into a JCT Design and Build Contract 2005 with B&C for the design and construction of a substantial residential property at Sleepy Hollow, Castle Hill, Prestbury.
The employer’s requirements provided that structural engineers — Howard Taylor Associates (HTA) (which had been appointed by Hillcrest prior to the building contract) — should be retained and appointed by B&C to continue and complete the design. The employer’s requirements further provided that HTA was to be novated to B&C upon execution of the building contract — and a draft novation agreement was incorporated…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
The defence of illegality – which prevents a claimant from bringing a claim that arises out of its own illegal acts – can’t be used where the company is claiming against its directors.
Principle of the free movement of capital upheld in recent decision.