Daltons Solicitors News - Solicitors Petersfield and Hayling Island - Daltons-law.co.uk

Ministers want rural councils to consider changing planning policies to support residential conversion of unwanted farm buildings rather than insisting on employment reuse.
That approach was highlighted in the Government’s response to the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report into farming in England’s upland areas, which include seven national parks.

The administration said: “Planning authorities in rural areas with high demand for homes may want to consider amending their local planning policies to support the change of use of farm buildings to affordable homes where these are considered inappropriate for employment use, or take the need for affordable homes into account in assessing individual applications.”

The Government has reaffirmed plans to publish a countryside policy statement setting out its rural policy priorities, including economic ones, before the summer Parliamentary recess.

Also in the Government’s sights are proposals to amend national park legislation to reflect the importance of sustainable development in park authorities’ activities.

However, the administration has decided there are no “overwhelming arguments” for adding a specific socio-economic duty for national parks to promote socio-economic development.

The idea of such a duty was promoted by the advisory body the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC).

When the terms of a house building contract exclude any liability for losses incurred by the client on account of defective works, the client has no redress under a general duty of care.

This was the decision of the Court of Appeal in a recent case concerning the construction of a property in Prestbury in Cheshire. The property was built by PE Jones (Contractors) Ltd. for its client, Mr James Robinson. On completion of the works, it was sold to him.

During the construction of the property, Mr Robinson decided that he would like an additional gas fire flue built into a second room (the original contract included only one gas fire flue). This was agreed under the contract and the contractors constructed a second chimney flue and Mr Robinson arranged directly with British Gas for the supply and installation of a second fire. The work progressed to completion in April 1992.

It wasn’t until September 2004 that a British Gas service engineer discovered that the second gas flue was defective, which resulted in both gas fires being disconnected for safety reasons. A subsequent surveyor’s report indicated that the flues had not been constructed in accordance with good building practice nor with the Building Regulations in force at the time of construction. The required remedial work was estimated to cost around £35,000.

When attempts to resolve Mr Robinson’s claim for a refund of the cost of the remedial work failed, he issued a claim in the Manchester County Court. The claim was later transferred to the Technology and Construction Court, where it was rejected on the grounds that it was out of time under the contract.

On appeal, it was argued that the trial judge was wrong in rejecting the claim and that the builder owed a duty of care to its client resulting in a liability for the economic loss suffered by the house owner. The appeal, along with the original claim, sought to rely on the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Although the building contract included terms excluding liability after a specified period of time, it was argued that such terms could not exclude a general duty of care.

The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Robinson’s arguments, however, and dismissed his claim for damages against the builder. The contract terms agreed between them were such that he could not invoke the law of tort in order to impose liabilities upon the builder which were inconsistent with the contract.

Michael Dalton says, “New building contracts are normally governed by the National House-Building Council’s (NHBC) standard forms of agreement. It is vital that expert advice is sought on the implications of any contract, including one that uses the standard NHBC terms, prior to entering into any building agreement.”

The High Court recently ruled that the buyer of a Tudor mansion can proceed with a claim for more than £300,000 for loss of fittings and damage to the property. An application by the seller of the property to have the claim struck out was rejected by the Court.

The claim arose because after the property purchase was agreed, but before contracts were exchanged, a burglary took place resulting in substantial damage to the property and the theft of many valuable fittings, such as period fireplaces and doors. The contract for sale included a clause that the sale included ‘all fixtures and fittings therein’.

The buyer had previously carried out a detailed inspection of the property and, although he had been informed that a burglary had taken place, claimed that he was not made aware of the extent of the damage to the property and the losses. He alleged that on the day of the exchange of contracts he was told by the vendor’s agents that there had been damage to a fireplace and he assumed that this was damage of which he was already aware. The agents claimed that the buyer was made aware of the removal of some of the fireplaces and the possibility of further damage.

The Court ruled that the buyer had an arguable claim of deceit on the basis of the non-disclosure by the seller’s agents of the extent of the damage.

The case will now be heard on the basis of a claim that the exchange of contracts was procured by misrepresentation.

How can you have an amicable divorce - whilst blaming your spouse for the breakup?

Pop singer, Cheryl Cole’s divorce from her England footballer husband Ashley would be “clean, swift, amicable and smooth” reported national newspapers earlier this summer. And yet the divorce papers filed on her behalf were said to cite the reason for the break-up of the marriage as being Ashley Cole’s “unreasonable behaviour”.

If Cheryl truly wanted an amicable and smooth divorce, Ashley may have wondered why irreconcilable differences or the like wasn’t cited as the reason for the divorce. Few like to be accused of behaving so badly that their partner cannot ‘reasonably’ be expected to live with them. Read the rest of this entry »