+44 207 488 9947
The case of Mirimskaya v Evans and Another [2007] concerned the construction of a fixed price contractual relationship between two parties. The claimant bought a house in West London (“the Property”) as a birthday present for her son. She intended to have it refurbished and extended so that it was finished to the highest standard. The first defendant, an aspiring property developer and the principal director of the second defendant company, was introduced to the claimant as being suitable to carry out the proposed works. After many informal discussions between them, it was agreed that the first defendant would be engaged to carry out ‘stage one’ of the proposed works.
The parties agreed that the development of the property would be divided into three stages, namely, ‘stage one’, ‘phase one’ and ‘phase two’. It was subsequently agreed that the first defendant would commence ‘phase one’ of the works once planning permission and building control approval had been received.
In order to finance the commencement of the proposed works, the claimant paid the second defendant advance payments in respect of ‘stage one’ and ‘phase one’, as well as for professional fees.
Unfortunately, by November 2005, the claimant had become concerned about the lack of progress made with regards to the property. She asked the first defendant to account for the sums which he had received and to explain how they had been spent. She also informed him that she wanted the arrangements to be recorded in a formal contract. Additionally, she refused to pay any further sum of money until a schedule of payments, linked to the progress of works, was agreed.
However, the requests were ignored, and so by March 2006, the defendants indicated that they could not continue with the work without further payments since they were running out of funds and were not prepared to finance the rest of the project themselves.
An exchange between the parties' solicitors took place in April 2006, in which each party alleged that the other had repudiated the contract. The claimant issued proceedings claiming money which she alleged that she had overpaid to the defendants. The principal issues between the parties included:
The court held:-
Please contact us for more information on assessing damages due under termination of a contract at [email protected]
Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_corporatecommercial.php
© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.