Cookie consent

This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookies on atkinchambers.com

Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.

Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookie settings

Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.

Analytical cookies that measure website use

Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.

Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:

  • how you got to the site
  • the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
  • what you click on while you’re visiting the site

Strictly necessary cookies

These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.

Save changes

Freeborn & Anor v Marcal (t/a Dan Marcal Architects) [2019] EWHC 454 (TCC)

27th Feb 2019

Robert Clay successfully acted for the owners and occupiers of a north London home against the architect commissioned to convert the property’s Pool House into a function room and to build a home cinema.

The cinema room was supposed to be a glass box on legs with a sleek modern look. The room that was actually constructed had a “wonky industrial look”. The homeowners claimed that the architect had re-designed the cinema room without their approval and that it was impossible to rectify. They also blamed him for faults regarding works to the windows and flooring and to the swimming pool.

The judgment held that the architect had been negligent in his failure to produce a written brief or record the design changes for the cinema box.. As the cinema could not be transformed into the expected design the homeowners were entitled to recover from the architect the wasted costs of £431,000 spent on the cinema room, plus interest. Related claims related to work on the swimming pool were not held.

The case is particularly notable for being a (rare) successful claim to demolish a building because it does not meet the client’s brief.

Robert Clay was instructed by Healys LLP for the Claimants.

To view the judgment click here.

(27 February 2019)





Related Juristictions

Register for updates

To keep in touch with news and updates from Atkin Chambers:

 

Register