Darcliffe Homes Limited vs Glanville Consultants – High Court dismisses negligence claim

Introduction

The High Court has ruled in favour of Glanville Consultants, dismissing a negligence claim brought by Darcliffe Homes Limited. The case centred around allegations of professional negligence related to ground investigation reports provided by Glanville for a proposed development site.

Background

Darcliffe Homes Limited, a property development company, engaged Glanville Consultants to conduct a Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment of a site in Tilehurst, near Reading. The reports were intended to support the inclusion of the site in the local planning framework and to inform subsequent development decisions.

The Allegations

Darcliffe alleged that Glanville's reports failed to identify significant ground dissolution risks due to chalk beneath the site. They claimed that this oversight led to substantial remediation costs, amounting to approximately £7.5 million, and sought damages for negligence and breach of contract.

The Court's Analysis

Deputy Judge Adrian Williamson KC examined the scope of Glanville's duty, focusing on whether the reports were prepared with reasonable skill and care. The court considered expert testimony and the context of the reports' preparation, ultimately finding that Glanville's duty was limited to providing a preliminary assessment based on available data.

Findings on Negligence

While the court acknowledged that Glanville's reports could have included more explicit warnings about potential chalk dissolution, it concluded that the omissions did not constitute negligence. The court noted that the reports were intended as preliminary assessments, with further investigations anticipated.

Reliance and Causation

The court found that Darcliffe had not demonstrated reliance on the reports in a manner that would establish causation for the alleged losses. It was determined that Darcliffe would have proceeded with the development regardless of the reports' content, as they had already engaged a second engineering firm for further site investigations.

Damages and Losses

In addressing the claimed damages, the court rejected Darcliffe's argument for recovery based on a breach of warranty. Instead, it considered the appropriate measure of loss to be the difference in site value had the reports accurately reflected the ground conditions. However, given the lack of causation, this issue was moot.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Darcliffe's claim, concluding that Glanville had not breached their duty of care and that any alleged deficiencies in the reports did not cause the claimed losses. The decision underscores the importance of understanding the scope of duty in professional negligence cases.

Learn More

For more information on construction disputes, see BeCivil's guide to Resolving Construction Disputes.

Copyright & permissions