| The case of Weetwood Services Ltd v Ansvar | | | | calculations for the two models had been provided, |
| Holdings Ltd [2007], concerned the implication of a term | | | | only the results. |
| of a contract. The defendant occupied a site on which | | | | The claimant subsequently provided some further |
| it planned to develop a car showroom. It received an | | | | information, though not to the satisfaction of the |
| abatement notice from the local authority concerning | | | | defendant, who refused to pay the fee of around |
| the unauthorised creation of a culvert for a stream on | | | | £5,000. The claimant then issued proceedings. |
| the site. The existence of the culvert affected the | | | | The judge held that the limit of the claimant's obligation |
| planning permission for the proposed car showroom. | | | | under the letter of engagement was to provide the |
| It was the intention of the authority that the culvert be | | | | results of the mathematical modelling, without more. |
| removed and replaced by an open channel stream. | | | | The defendant subsequently appealed. |
| The defendant engaged the services of the claimant | | | | The issue was whether by the wording of the |
| engineering company to provide a report on the | | | | engagement letter, or by an implied term (the |
| culvert. The claimant was asked: | | | | defendant's alternative argument), the claimant had |
| - whether the culvert was capable of handling the | | | | been in breach of contract in failing to provide the |
| volume of water ever likely to pass through it (referred | | | | basis of the results of the modelling which it had |
| to as the "1 in 100 year test"); and | | | | undertaken. |
| - whether the previous stream could be reinstated | | | | The appeal would be dismissed. |
| within a channel 10m wide along the north landing. | | | | It was held on appeal that on the true construction of |
| By the terms of the engagement letter, the claimant | | | | the engagement letter, the claimant had not |
| undertook: | | | | undertaken to report the calculations involved in its |
| - To carry out a topographical survey; | | | | report, only the results. The suggested implied term |
| - To assess the catchment hydrology to give culvert | | | | was therefore not necessary for business efficacy. It |
| inflow hydrographs for return periods of 5, 25, 50 and | | | | was therefore decided that the purpose of the |
| 100 years; | | | | engagement of the claimant was to determine the |
| - To build an HEC-RAS model of the watercourse | | | | potential for flooding, which the information that the |
| with the culvert in place and with the replacement | | | | engineers had provided had done. |
| channel; and | | | | © RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does |
| - To run the two models for the various return periods | | | | not provide a comprehensive or complete statement |
| and 'report on' the results. | | | | of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it |
| In December 2001, the claimant provided a report | | | | constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight |
| which concluded that the culvert was inadequate. The | | | | general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be |
| defendant took the view that the report did not comply | | | | sought in relation to particular circumstances. |
| with the letter of engagement, in that insufficient | | | | |