Junior Books v Veitchi [1983] 1 AC 520 Case Summary

KEY POINTS

Damages Remoteness refers to the legal principle that limits the recoverable damages to those that were foreseeable at the time of the breach of duty. This doctrine ensures that parties are only held responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions or omissions.
In the context of a Specialist Sub-contractor, the focus is on the specialised nature of their work and the specific obligations outlined in their contract.
The Scope of Duty of Care outlines one party's responsibilities to another, defining the boundaries of their legal obligations to prevent harm or loss. These legal concepts play a crucial role in shaping liability and accountability within contractual and tortious relationships.

Veitchi Co. Ltd. (‘Defenders’), serving as specialist flooring contractors, were contracted as sub-contractors to install a floor in a factory under construction by a building company, with no direct contractual relationship between the pursuers and the defenders.
Junior Books Ltd. (‘Pursuers’) claimed that the floor's defects resulted from the defenders' negligence.
They asserted that the Defenders, being specialists, were solely responsible for the floor's composition and construction, knowing the necessary products and understanding that the pursuers relied on their expertise.
The pursuers alleged suffering losses due to floor cracking. They initiated legal action, seeking compensation for the estimated cost of floor relaying, along with consequential economic and financial losses such as machinery removal expenses and loss of profits during the relaying process. No claims of danger to people or property arose from the floor's condition.
The Defenders submitted a plea challenging the relevancy of the Pursuers' claims. Still, the Lord Ordinary found a valid cause of action and allowed the pursuers to proceed with proof before answering.
The Second Division of the Court of Session upheld this decision, rejecting the Defenders' reclaiming motion. The Defenders subsequently appealed the case.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Second Division of the Court of Session.
In cases where the relationship between the parties was sufficiently close, the duty of care in delict or tort owed by an individual conducting work was not confined to preventing foreseeable harm to persons or property beyond the subject matter of the work due to negligent acts or omissions. Instead, it extended to avoiding pure economic loss resulting from defects in the work and in the work itself.
Assuming the Pursuers' averments were accurate, they established a significant degree of proximity, giving rise to a duty of care. There was nothing in the averments to limit that duty.
The Pursuers were entitled to recover their financial loss for repairing the floor. However, their recovery was limited to the less profitable operation of their business, affected by the substantial cost of maintaining the floor.
If the Pursuers chose to relay the floor to mitigate their loss, the cost of such action became the measure of the Defenders' liability.

Specialist flooring contractors, the Defenders, were subcontracted to install a factory floor with no direct contract with the Pursuers. Alleging negligence, the Pursuers sought compensation for floor defects and resulting economic losses. Despite no danger claims, the Defenders contested the claims' relevancy, but the Lord Ordinary validated the cause of action. The Second Division upheld this decision, dismissing the defenders' subsequent appeal.
The judgment highlighted an extended duty of care in tort, covering economic loss from defects. Assuming accurate averments, the Pursuers could recover repair costs limited to their business's less profitable operation. If they chose to relay the floor, the cost would measure the defenders' liability, showcasing the intricate dynamics of contractual relationships and duty of care in negligence cases.

Junior Books (J) employed MC to build a factory, who subcontracted the floor to Veitchi (V). When V laid the floor defectively, J sued V directly in tort (NOT for breach of contract).
HL allowed the claim since there was sufficient proximity between the parties to establish a duty of care.

said the relationship could be considered as being proximate since it was as close as it was possible to be, short of there being privity of contract.
- HL didn’t address the point that this case undermines the privity of contract.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch