<p><i>Jonathan Spencer (Partner) and Jordane Watson (Trainee Solicitor) of Simmons & Simmons consider the judgment in Lejonvarn v Burgess <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=5Y57-14D3-GXFD-827V&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t" target="_blank">[2020] EWCA Civ 114</a>, in which the Court of Appeal held that costs should have been awarded on an indemnity basis following an unsuccessful professional negligence claim.</i></p><p>This case is known to many in the construction industry. The underlying dispute involved an architect who was sued by her neighbours for providing allegedly-negligent free advice, concerning a significant landscaping project.</p><p>The last chapter in this unusual story involved a victory for the architect, when the High Court rejected the claimants’ allegations of breach of duty in respect of the services the architect actually provided – describing aspects of the case as “threadbare” and offending common sense. The full background to this case and an analysis of the earlier decisions can be found <a target="_blank" href="[f669d9a7-009d-4d83-ddaa-000000000002]22CE9C9F-2904-42B9-8325-107E19D7FEF2/construction-professionals-and-duties-of-inspection">here</a>.</p><p>The latest decision involves a ruling on costs, and some very interesting commentary from Lord Justice Coulson who described the case as one that has “echoes of the bad old days” when “construction litigation was a byword for expense and delay”.</p><p>In short, the architect appealed the court’s ruling that costs should be awarded on the standard basis and argued that they should be awarded on an indemnity basis. The court found in favour of the appellant and, in doing so, addressed three distinct issues:</p><h3>1. Was the respondents’ conduct out of the norm?</h3><p>The central issue was whether the respondents (or their advisors) sho</p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
The case that keeps on giving: Lejonvarn v Burgess
