Saigol v Cranley Mansion Ltd & Ors

The supplied extract does not contain the Court of Appeal’s final reasoning or operative order. It records the trial judge’s approach in a construction-contract dispute. Causation was analysed in two stages: first, the general cause of the works’ non-completion; secondly, whether each alleged breach caused the identified loss. The trial judge found a contractual duty to consult the owner’s designer before issuing Certificate 7 and treated that breach as causative of the contractual breakdown. Damages were assessed by reference to the lesser of repair costs and diminution in value, measured when the works should have been completed. The extract does not show whether the Court of Appeal adopted, varied or rejected those findings.

Saigol v Cranley Mansion Ltd & Ors was an appeal from an order made by His Honour Judge Thornton QC in the Technology and Construction Court on 15 February 1999. The order awarded the respondent £739,903 including interest and directed payment of the fourth defendant’s costs.

The dispute arose from defective refurbishment works to a block of flats. The claims concerned contractual duties relating to supervision, consultation and interim certificates, causation of the project’s breakdown, and damages for the resulting loss. The extract summarises the trial judge’s findings, including the award of £90,000 in the personal proceedings and £110,000 in assigned proceedings. The supplied text ends before the Court of Appeal’s analysis and final disposition. The grounds of appeal and the central question decided by this court are therefore not stated in the supplied material.

Extent of the supplied judgment

The extract identifies a court judgment to which Lord Justice Otton, Lord Justice Buxton and Lady Justice Hale each contributed. It contains the background, litigation history and a summary of the trial judge’s findings. It does not contain the Court of Appeal’s substantive reasoning or final order.

1. The trial judge divided causation into two stages: identifying the general cause of the works’ non-completion, and then deciding whether the individual defendants’ breaches were legally causative of that loss.
2. The trial judge found that Congreve owed Mrs Saigol a contractual duty to consult Mr Goldsbrough before issuing Certificate 7. That duty was breached. The judge concluded that, had consultation occurred, the certificate would not have been issued and the works would have been completed satisfactorily or an allowance would have been made on the final account.
3. The trial judge assessed loss by reference to the lesser of repair costs and diminution in value, calculated as at October 1988. He awarded £200,000 in total, divided between the personal and assigned proceedings.
4. Whether those findings were upheld, varied or rejected on appeal, and whether the appeal was allowed or dismissed, is not stated in the supplied extract.

• High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court: His Honour Judge Thornton QC made the order dated 15 February 1999, awarding £739,903 including interest and making a costs order.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal is reported at [2000] EWCA Civ 52. The supplied extract does not state the appellate reasoning or result.