HT-2022-000311 & HT-2022-000254 - [2024] EWHC 3179 (TCC)

It follows from what I have said above that remedial works to the Property are required for which Click St Andrews are liable under the FPA and on the other bases discussed above. Click Group Holdings is similarly liable to RTM under the guarantee.

Mr Chick of JP Chick & Partners Ltd. gave evidence in relation to the remedial works required to remedy the defects identified in Mr Ebbatson’s report principally, of course, the structural issues with the beams identified. It was put to Mr Chick in cross-examination that Mr Ebbatson had identified four beams that needed to be addressed but Mr Chick had proposed works to eight beams. It seems to me that there is nothing in this point since what Mr Chick has done is identify the beams which have insufficient bearing because of the use of packers as well as those which are not full length and which accordingly require remedial works.

Since Mr Ebbatson had addressed the fire safety issues, these were included. As I have said, this was not properly the matter on which Mr Ebbatson gave evidence but the proposed remedial works are intended to address fire stopping as well and are appropriate to address the matters on which I have found in the claimants’ favour. The proposed remedial works also address some workmanship defects, for example, a strapping plate not fixed. For the avoidance of doubt, any such workmanship defects which I have not specifically addressed but which are referred to in Mr Ebbatson’s report should be included in the scope of remedial works.

Mr Chick’s evidence was that he had noted that the quantity surveyor, Mr Daly, had allowed a period of 5 months for the carrying out of the remedial works. He considered that inadequate and that they could take up to a year. He added that works to transfer loads rarely run smoothly – allowance has to be made for that and other contingencies. Time needs to be allowed to gain full access, remove plates and insert temporary support, apply epoxy resin and wait for that to go off. On the basis of the answers that Mr Chick gave in cross examination that would appear to take less than 2 weeks for each beam and the one year time estimate might therefore appear exaggerated. He also suggested a period of 6 months. I bear in mind that the scope of remedial works includes the fire-stopping and compartmentation and works related to the water ingress and, allowing for contingencies, it seems to me that a period of longer than 5 months is realistic. Doing the best I can, I take a period of 9 months.

I subsequently gave permission for Mr Daly to rely (with two limited exceptions) on the contents of a new Appendix 7 to his report which incorporated increased costs for the longer time frame for remedial works figures being given for a 6 month programme and a 12 month programme.

The two limited exceptions were paragraphs in relation to remedial works in respect of fire safety issues which Mr Daly considered were not within the scope of the works identified by Mr Chick and had not been costed. A relatively modest sum of around £8k was sought to be added but, in short, it appeared to me too late to add remedial works through the mechanism of a quantum report.