Panatown v McAlpine

Philip Eyre

May 2001

A paper based on the first prize winning entry in the Millennium Hudson
Prize Competition, presented to the Society of Construction Law in London
on 1st May 2001.

The author looks at the extent to which the House of Lords' decision
in this case clarified and developed the law relating to third party loss
in the context of contemporary commercial practice in the construction
industry. The argument was that Panatown, who had entered into a building
contract with McAlpine, were not entitled to recover substantial damages
under the contract because they had no proprietary interest in the land
or building and had suffered no loss, since the site was owned by a sister
company. He considers whether the House of Lords was successful in its
task of reaching a solution which was in accordance with principle and
did practical justice between the parties, without leaving too great a
legacy of problems for the future.

Introduction - Building owners - The impact of warranties
on underlying building contracts - The 'broader ground'
- The 'narrow ground' - Contracts (ights of Third
Parties) Act 1999 - Conclusion.

The author:. Philip Eyre LLB (Hons), MICS is an associate solicitor
with Glovers, solicitors, in London.

Text 11 pages.

PDF file size: 82k