County Down couple awarded nearly £70k in damages from building contractor after home renovation nightmare

From Alan Erwin, Laganside Media – 07971 611459. Catch renovation dispute.

25/11/22

A Co Down couple who sued a building contractor over the alleged defective

renovation of their home are to receive nearly £70,000 in damages, a High

Court judge ruled.

Gerard and Anne Marie Boyle were awarded a further £2,000 compensation for

distress and delays in being able to return to the property.

Mr Justice Humphreys also ordered Nigel Morrison to pay their legal costs

in the action.

In 2018 the couple entered a £91,700 contract with Mr Morrison to carry out

renovations which included constructing an extension at Strangford Road in

Downpatrick.

Along with their children they moved into alternative accommodation for a

three-month period.

But it was claimed that when they first tried to return home the floor was

not laid, and there was no bathroom.

The property was not fit for habitation at that stage, according to the

plaintiffs.

When the family did eventually move back in, Mrs Boyle described the place

as being “a mess”.

An area of floor screed in the closet of the master bedroom was identified

as crumbling.

With the couple having paid out a total of £85,000 for the renovations, at

that stage they arranged for another contractor to complete the project.

Damages were sought against Nigel Morrison, trading as NHM Construction

Holdings, for alleged defective and incomplete works.

The defendant denied the claims, asserting that failures to make payment on

time caused any delays.

He counter-sued for an unpaid balance of £6,700 on the original contract,

plus an extra £8,750 to cover the value of extra works.

The court heard that an expert building surveyor who inspected the property

identified a number of significant defects, including door thresholds,

window lintels and finished floor levels all being too high.

Further issues were identified with the installation of a structural

concrete floor slab, guttering and a drainage system described as

“outrageous” and unfit for purpose.

Denying the alleged flaws, Mr Morrison insisted that any changes to the

plans and specifications were on instruction from the plaintiffs and due to

cost savings.

He told the court that he had never previously encountered a dispute in his

30 years’ experience as a building contractor.

Rejecting his version of events and dismissing the counterclaim, Mr Justice

Humphreys held that he had been “both dissembling and dishonest”.

The judge said: “He was prepared to blame others for his substandard work,

allege that

any documents which would assist his case had been lost or forgotten and

that approval had been given for variations to the contract works when this

was manifestly not the case.”

He ruled that the defendant either failed to comply with specifications in

the contract or carry out the works with the expected care and skill.

“The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to damages in the sum of £68,962.74

in respect of the incomplete and defective works,” Mr Justice Humphreys

confirmed.

Those failings, according to the judge, caused the couple and their

children considerable upset and distress.

“The family had hoped to move back into the property at the start of the

school term in August 2018 but were prevented from doing so by the various

defects and delays in the work,” he pointed out. “There was also an

extended period of further disruption when the remedial works were

undertaken at the property.

“I am satisfied that the plaintiffs are each entitled to an award of £1,000

in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to them by the

defendant.” Ends

--

Copydesk Ni