Weetwood Services Ltd v Ansvar Holdings Ltd

A contractual promise to run specified computer models and report their results does not, without more, require delivery of the underlying calculations. The scope of a professional services obligation depends on the contractual words read in their commercial context. A further term requiring supporting calculations is implied only where necessary to give the contract business efficacy. Where the agreed purpose is to compare flooding potential under two modelled scenarios, reporting the comparative results may fulfil the obligation. Voluntary additional information supplied after the report does not enlarge the contractual task.

Weetwood Services Ltd v Ansvar Holdings Ltd was an appeal by the defendant from a Manchester County Court judgment dated 1 December 2006, awarding the claimant £7,092.68 in fees. The claimant had been engaged as environmental engineers after an abatement notice concerning a culvert affected a planning application.

The engagement letter specified surveys, hydrological assessments, two HEC-RAS models and a report on the results. The defendant argued that the contract required the detailed calculations supporting the report, either expressly or under an implied term. The central issue was the scope of the agreed professional services obligation.

1. Appeal dismissed. Waller LJ held that the contractual obligation was to carry out the specified investigations, run the two HEC-RAS models, and report their results.
2. The words requiring a report on the results did not require the engineers to provide all detailed calculations supporting those results. The contractual purpose was to enable a comparison of the potential for flooding with the culvert in place and after its removal. The report supplied sufficient results for that purpose.
3. No additional term was necessary to give the contract business efficacy. The fact that further calculations might have assisted the defendant, or might have satisfied the Environment Agency, did not make them part of the contractual obligation.
4. Further information supplied voluntarily after the draft report did not enlarge the agreed task. The judge’s conclusions concerning later engineering drawings therefore did not arise for decision.
5. Sedley LJ agreed with Waller LJ’s reasons and considered that the first-instance judge was right. Moses LJ agreed with both judgments. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division)—the defendant’s appeal was dismissed unanimously.
• Manchester County Court—HHJ Armitage QC gave judgment on 1 December 2006 for the claimant in the sum of £7,092.68; the order was drawn up on 8 December 2006.