Countrywide Construction Ltd v Eurasion Aviation & Maritime Service

A partly oral and partly written construction agreement is established by objectively assessing the parties’ communications and conduct. The court may reject an alleged contractual term where it is unsupported by the contemporaneous documents and the parties’ dealings. Variations and additional works are recoverable where they were instructed and the agreed charging basis is proved. A contractor’s claim for remedial or additional work must be supported by reliable evidence identifying the contractual responsibility, the alleged defect and the reasonable cost of cure. A counterclaim based on speculative expert opinion, inadequate particularisation or work outside the contractor’s responsibility will fail to that extent. The court may make a reasonable allowance for proved defective workmanship while rejecting exaggerated claims.

The claimant building company carried out brickwork, blockwork, flooring and related works for the defendant’s proposed house and later performed garden works. The parties had no signed contract. Their agreement was partly contained in quotations, drawings and correspondence and partly formed through oral discussions. Disputes arose over the scope of the main works, the agreed rates for variations and garden works, delays caused by missing design information, alleged defects and the defendant’s substantial counterclaim.

The court determined the contractual terms, assessed the claimant’s unpaid account and considered whether the alleged defects and remedial costs had been proved.

1. Contract terms. The agreement required the claimant to carry out specified brickwork, materials and block-and-beam flooring for an agreed price, with preliminaries as identified in the quotation and breakdown. Additional works were chargeable at the agreed day-work rates. No term was established making the defendant’s quantity surveyor a final arbiter or making payment dependent on his certificates.
2. Garden works. The garden works were outside the main contract. They were instructed by the defendant and were to be charged at the agreed rates. The claimant regularly submitted invoices and proved the unpaid balance of £99,507.34. The contention that the labour was covered by the main-contract preliminaries was rejected.
3. Additional and day works. The claimant proved that the disputed works were instructed and performed. Accurate day-work sheets supported recovery of £36,264.75, together with the other sums established on the account.
4. Counterclaim. The defendant’s allegations were inadequately particularised in material respects and were not supported by reliable evidence. Claims were rejected where the alleged work was outside the claimant’s contractual responsibility, resulted from the defendant’s instructions, or was based on speculation. The court allowed only limited sums for proved matters, including £13,000 for defective external piers, £7,325 for remedial dumming out, £2,245 for internal brickwork and smaller allowances for balustrading, scaffolding and floor misalignment.
5. The claimant therefore proved its claim in substantial part. The supplied judgment does not state a separate formal final order or costs order.