Perdita Martell v Grzegorz Roszkowski & Ors
[2024] EWHC 840 (TCC)
BDW Trading Limited v Lantoom Limited
3 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 183 (TCC)
High Court
A housebuilder sued a stone supplier because the stone they used cracked. The judge decided the stone was bad, not the builder's fault, and the supplier had to pay for the repairs.
Key Facts
- •Dispute arose from stone cracking, spalling, and falling away in a Barratt Homes housing development (Penndrumm Fields).
- •Claimant (BDW Trading Limited) is a national housebuilder; Defendant (Lantoom Limited) supplied the stone.
- •40 houses in Phase 1 used Lantoom stone for cavity walling.
- •BDW replaced all Lantoom stone with stone from a different quarry (Yennadon).
- •Contract formation was disputed, focusing on whether BDW's or Lantoom's standard terms applied.
- •Extensive expert geological and engineering evidence was presented.
- •The court considered the type of stone (slate vs. mudstone), its fitness for purpose, and whether the issues resulted from material defects or faulty construction.
Legal Principles
Incorporation of standard terms by reference is sufficient if reasonably sufficient notice was given.
Chitty on Contracts, 33rd ed., paragraphs 13-013 to 13-015; Impala Warehousing and Logistics (Shanghai) Co Ltd. v Wanxiang Resources (Singapore) Pte Ltd. [2015] EWHC 25 (Comm).
Sale of Goods Act 1979, section 14(2): Implied term that goods are of satisfactory quality.
Sale of Goods Act 1979
Sale of Goods Act 1979, section 14(3): Implied term that goods are reasonably fit for their purpose.
Sale of Goods Act 1979
Expert evidence must be independent and comply with CPR Part 35.
CPR Part 35
Outcomes
Contract was formed on BDW's standard terms.
Lantoom's actions in supplying stone after receiving BDW's Purchase Order constituted acceptance, despite the delivery note attempting to incorporate Lantoom's terms.
Lantoom breached the contract by supplying unsatisfactory stone.
The stone was not fit for its intended purpose (external cavity walling) due to inherent weaknesses revealed by testing and its poor on-site performance. The court rejected Lantoom’s arguments that issues stemmed from improper construction.
BDW is entitled to damages for breach of contract and an indemnity under clause 10.5 of BDW's standard terms.
Lantoom's breach of contract led to BDW's losses. The indemnity covers liabilities arising from defects in the supplied goods.
The question of whether it was reasonable for BDW to replace all the stonework will be addressed in the quantum stage.
The court deemed the issue of proportionality of the remedial works too closely tied to quantum to be determined in the liability phase.