Workman Properties Ltd v Adi Building And Refurbishment Ltd
Citation: [2024] EWHC 2627 (TCC)
Background Facts​
-
The project involved the expansion works at Cotteswold Dairy, Tewkesbury, including new cold stores, offices, regrading of yard, and new drainage.
-
JCT Design and Build Contract 2016 (with bespoke amendments), signed January 2022.
-
Employer’s Requirements stated that design had been developed up to RIBA Stage 4 or 4(i).
-
ADI argued that design information provided by WPL was incomplete and not fully developed to RIBA Stage 4/4(i), causing extra work, time, and cost.
-
An adjudicator (Mr Hough) found in ADI’s favor on the interpretation that WPL had warranted the design was complete to Stage 4/4(i), entitling ADI to damages and to treat additional design work as a Change under the contract.
-
WPL then brought Part 8 proceedings seeking court declarations clarifying its design obligations.
​Judgment
-
Court’s decision:
-
The court favoured WPL’s interpretation, overturning the adjudicator’s view.
-
​
-
Key findings:
-
Under the contract, ADI had full responsibility for all design, including design within the Employer’s Requirements.
-
The contract and its bespoke amendments placed the onus on ADI to verify, complete, and accept responsibility for all design, whether or not it had been developed to RIBA Stage 4/4(i).
-
The Employer’s Requirements stating that design had been developed to Stage 4/4(i) did not constitute a warranty but rather described the state of development; they did not absolve ADI of responsibility.
-
ADI was required to satisfy itself that the design was sufficient for construction and was contractually responsible for any gaps or deficiencies.
-
​
-
Declarations granted:
-
ADI was obliged to complete all design work to RIBA Stage 4/4(i).
-
WPL did not warrant that design was fully developed to Stage 4/4(i).
-
ADI could not treat further design work as a Change, nor claim additional time, costs, or loss/expense on that basis.
-
​
-
Outcome:
The court granted limited declarations reflecting these points but rejected broader and overly wide declarations sought by WPL.
General Principles Developed
-
Design responsibility in design and build contracts:
-
When a design and build contractor assumes full design responsibility, it accepts the risk of incomplete or defective design in Employer’s Requirements unless expressly excluded.
-
​
-
Interpretation of design stage statements:
-
Statements describing design progress (e.g., "developed to Stage 4") are not warranties unless clearly stated as such.
-
Contractors must independently verify sufficiency and completeness of any prior design before proceeding.
-
​
-
Effect of bespoke amendments:
-
Contractual amendments placing full design liability on the contractor override general expectations from standard form wording.
-
​
-
No implied warranties without clear language:
-
Courts will not infer a warranty or representation about design completeness unless explicitly included in the contract language.
-
​
-
Role of Part 8 proceedings:
-
Suitable for resolving pure points of contractual interpretation not requiring resolution of disputed facts.
-