Pride Valley Foods Limited v Hall & Partners & Anor

An appellate remittal must be confined to the issue identified in the appellate judgment. A lower court may investigate the precise nature and approximate cost of a remedial proposal where those matters bear on whether the claimant would have acted on the advice. It may not reopen an issue already decided, including whether the defendant should have recommended the proposal or whether it would have prevented the relevant harm. The claimant’s counterfactual response must be assessed in light of the cost of the settled proposal, without introducing shortcomings that have already been excluded from the remitted issue.

Pride Valley Foods Limited v Hall & Partners & Anor concerned a claim against project management consultants following the destruction by fire of a bread-making factory. The High Court found that appropriate advice about combustible panels, flues and compartmentation should have been given, but concluded that the claimant would not have accepted it. An earlier appeal remitted the causation issue for reconsideration. On remittal, the High Court ruled that further expert evidence could in principle address whether the proposed mix and match solution would have avoided the fire and what risks it involved. The central issue was whether that approach fell within the scope of the remitted question.

Appeal allowed. Dyson LJ gave the judgment, with which Simon Brown LJ agreed.

1. The earlier appeal had remitted a limited causation issue. It had not ordered a retrial of the question whether Hall & Partners should have advised the mix and match solution or whether that solution would have prevented the spread of fire.
2. The judge on remittal could determine the precise nature and extent of the mix and match solution and its likely cost or range of costs. Exact precision was not necessarily required, and approximations might suffice. Evidence on those matters was admissible because they were relevant to deciding whether the claimant would have accepted the advice.
3. The question whether Hall & Partners should nevertheless have recommended the solution, having regard to possible shortcomings such as burner flame migration, was outside the remitted issue. The earlier findings, supported by the experts’ joint statement, had already established that the advice should have been given and that the solution would have prevented the spread of fire.
4. The judge could decide whether the claimant would have accepted the recommendation in light of its cost and the claimant’s willingness or unwillingness to incur further expenditure. That assessment had to be made without regard to possible shortcomings in the solution.

The scope of the remitted issue was therefore very narrow. The appeal was allowed with costs summarily assessed at £6,000.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2002] EWCA Civ 805, the appeal was allowed and costs were summarily assessed at £6,000.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — An earlier appeal in the same proceedings allowed the appeal on the causation issue and remitted the limited question whether the claimant would have accepted the required advice. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.
3. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court — His Honour Judge John Toulmin QC ruled on 17 May 2002 that expert evidence about the efficacy and risks of the mix and match solution could in principle be permitted, but postponed the final decision on permission.