<p><i>Jonathan Spencer (Partner) and Jordane Watson (Trainee Solicitor) of Simmons &amp; 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&amp;csi=279841&amp;oc=00240&amp;perma=true&amp;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.&nbsp; 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&rsquo; allegations of breach of duty in respect of the services the architect actually provided &ndash; describing aspects of the case as &ldquo;threadbare&rdquo; and offending common sense.&nbsp; 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 &ldquo;echoes of the bad old days&rdquo; when &ldquo;construction litigation was a byword for expense and delay&rdquo;.</p><p>In short, the architect appealed the court&rsquo;s ruling that costs should be awarded on the standard basis and argued that they should be awarded on an indemnity basis.&nbsp; The court found in favour of the appellant and, in doing so, addressed three distinct issues:</p><h3>1. Was the respondents&rsquo; 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