CJD Equipment v A&C Constructions

The matter before the court was a dispute between CJD Equipment and A&C Constructions regarding the construction of a premises. The primary issue was whether A&C Constructions breached their contractual obligations by providing a defective design, which subsequently caused damage to the premises. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the subcontractors of A&C Constructions were liable for the damage, based on representations they made to CJD Equipment. The case also raised questions about the duty of care owed by the defendants, the vulnerability of the plaintiff, and the scope of that duty. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether the damage to the building should be characterised as economic loss and whether the loss complained of was caused by the design or the representations made by the defendants. Lastly, the court examined whether the plaintiffs' amendments to the design constituted a novus actus interveniens, thereby breaking the chain of causation.

The court began by considering whether there was an implied term of fitness for purpose in the contract. It found that, given the limitations in the contractual documents, such a term could be implied. The court then assessed whether the design provided by A&C Constructions was defective. The court determined that it was, as it did not meet the implied requirement of fitness for purpose. The court further examined whether this defective design caused the damage to the premises. It concluded that the damage was indeed caused by the design provided by A&C Constructions. The court also addressed the liability of the subcontractors, finding that they could be held responsible for the damage based on the representations they made to CJD Equipment.

In determining the appropriate remedies, the court assessed the damages claimed by CJD Equipment. It found that some of the damages were too remote and not reasonably foreseeable. The court then apportioned the damages between the defendants, taking into account their respective contributions to the damage. The court also considered whether CJD Equipment had mitigated their losses. It found that they had not fully mitigated their losses and, as a result, reduced the damages awarded. Finally, the court examined whether CJD Equipment could recover economic loss from the defendants. It concluded that the damage to the building could be characterised as economic loss and that the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, who was deemed relevantly vulnerable. The court found that the loss was caused by the design or representations made by the defendants, and that the plaintiffs’ amendments to the design did not constitute a novus actus interveniens.

The court ordered A&C Constructions to pay CJD Equipment a reduced amount of damages for the breach of the implied term of fitness for purpose and the defective design. The subcontractors were also ordered to contribute to the damages based on their representations to CJD Equipment. The court further ordered that the defendants' liability was joint and several, and that the apportionment of damages between them was to be determined in further proceedings.