Kehr & Tucker Ltd v Astronomical Ltd

A contractual scope of services is determined objectively from the agreed documents and surrounding circumstances. In an evolving design process, work required by ordinary exchanges of information and revisions within the agreed purpose remains within scope. Work caused by later client instructions or specified exclusions may be additional and recoverable on a quantum meruit, provided it was authorised. Remedial work needed to correct the contractor’s own error is not additional work. Contractual interpretation is for the court; expert evidence may assist with technical matters and costings but not with determining the meaning or scope of the contract.

Kehr & Tucker Limited, consulting engineers, agreed to provide mechanical, electrical and public health design services for a development project for a lump sum of £15,000. The parties disputed whether the agreement covered detailed design work arising during the evolving project and whether various claimed items were additional services.

The claimant sought the unpaid balance of the agreed fee and further sums on a quantum meruit. The defendant disputed liability and had pleaded a counterclaim which was not pursued. The central issues were the scope of the agreed services and the value and authorisation of work said to fall outside that scope.

1. Contractual scope. The agreement, viewed objectively from the original proposal, its amendment and the accompanying letter, covered production of drawings sufficiently detailed for tender and design work following the architects’ fixed layout drawings. The documents identified two phases only and did not incorporate a separate detailed-design phase.
2. Evolution of design. Design is an evolutionary process involving liaison, information exchange and revisions until the drawings are complete for their intended purpose. Changes forming part of that ordinary process remained within the fixed-fee scope. Later changes indicated by the client or revised architect’s layouts were outside scope, except where an architect’s drawing had to be amended because of KT’s delay or mistake and consequential amendments followed.
3. Quantum meruit. Work outside the agreed scope was recoverable where it was properly authorised by or on behalf of the defendant. The court allowed specified additional work, including changes relating to kitchen layouts, a Jacuzzi, shower positions, vacuum services, swimming-pool regulations and ventilation, and above-ground rainwater drainage. It rejected or reduced claims that were within the original scope, resulted from KT’s own failure, were unsupported, or reflected inefficient allocation of resources.
4. Evidence. Interpretation of contractual terms and the effect of exclusions were matters for the court. Expert evidence was of limited assistance on those issues, although it assisted with technical matters and costings.
5. Disposition. The claimant recovered £11,788 for authorised additional services, the £5,000 balance of the contract sum and £5,456 interest. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the sum of £22,244. Costs were to be agreed, with liberty to apply.