Judge rejects couple’s claim against ex-friend over £360,000 garden landscaping

A north London couple who asked an architect friend and former neighbour for help landscaping their garden have failed in a damages claim against her after costs spiralled to almost £360,000. The case is one that previously went as high as the Court of Appeal on the preliminary issue of whether Basia Lejonvarn even owed Peter and Lynn Burgess a duty of care in tort for design and project management services she provided in relation to landscaping work at their home. The earlier rulings established that Lejonvarn did owe such a duty, but now the High Court has ruled that she did not in fact breach it. Dismissing a string of claims made against Lejonvarn, Deputy judge Martin Bowdery QC said the Burgesses had been “unable to identify any drawings produced by the defendant which caused any defective construction or any advice which was given negligently”. He added: “With regard to the complaint of a failure to advise or of a failure to warn the claimants of various matters, in the absence of any contract, the defendant was not under any duty to offer any such advice or warnings. However, until the parties fell out over the budget for the works, there was no advice or warnings which the defendant should have given which were not given.” And he said the Burgess’s case on design and project management was “even more threadbare”. In 2012, the Burgesses decided to carry out landscaping to their garden at their home, Highfields, in north London. They obtained a quotation of £150,000 plus VAT from a landscape garden company but regarded that as too expensive. They then asked Lejonvarn – a friend, former neighbour and an American-qualified architect – for assistance with their landscaping scheme She secured a contractor to carry out the earthworks and hard landscaping, and provided a quotation. She intended to provide subsequent design work in respect of the “soft” elements of the garden project, for which she would charge a fee, but the project never got that far. The Burgesses were unhappy with the quality and progress of the work and Lejonvarn’s involvement came to an end in July 2013. They alleged that much of the work done during the period of Lejonvarn’s involvement was defective, and that she was to blame for the overall project ultimately costing them £359,288. They sought to recover the difference between that sum and the earlier quotation they received – almost £180,000 – in damages. But the judge said that to pursue a claim of that size “suggests the claimants seek to punish the defendant for her alleged negligent mistakes” rather than seek fair and reasonable compensation. Dismissing the claim entirely, he said the problem the Burgesses faced was “that their relationship with the defendant broke down because of the misunderstandings as to whether her budget was £78,000 or £130,000”. He said: “The claimants are in no position to know, if they had not fallen out so badly with the defendant, whether the garden project would have been completed within the defendant’s budget. “On the balance of probabilities, I consider that the garden project could have been completed within the defendant’s agreed budget of £130,000 with any changes and variations priced separately. “Furthermore, I simply do not understand why the defendant is responsible for the defective works, if any, carried out by the claimants’ contractor both before and after 9 July 2013. The defendant’s budget was a reasonable and competent budget.” To send feedback, e-mail jess.harrold@egi.co.uk or tweet @estatesgazette