Defendants rebuilding property and selling to claimants – Property suffering damage through subsidence – Whether defendants owing duty to claimants – Defective Premises Act 1972 section 1 – Claimants’ claim allowed
The first defendant and his parents commenced business as Clayhall Building Supplies in 1988. In 1989 they wished to refurbish a property and sell it for a profit, with the intention of continuing on the same basis with other properties if the venture were successful. A building contractor was instructed to carry out the work, but all materials were supplied by Clayhall. In November 1991 the claimants purchased the property from the defendants. Substantial cracks began to appear in the building in 1995. The claimants notified their insurers and a subsequent inspection revealed serious subsidence. The claimants alleged that the first defendant had designed and/or constructed the dwelling and owed them a duty under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, of which he was in breach. The breaches alleged included a failure to design and or construct adequate foundations. The claimants claimed £43,000, being the agreed difference in value between the dwelling in good condition and in its present state. Four issues arose, notably whether the first defendant had arranged for work to be taken on in connection with the provision of a dwelling “in the course of a business … providing for or arranging for the provision of dwellings” under section 1(4) of the Act. The first defendant submitted that section 1(4) required that the business be involved in providing or arranging for the provision of more than one property.
Held: The claimants’ claim was allowed.
