Cases - King v Victor Parsons
Record details
- Name
- King v Victor Parsons
- Date
- [1973]
- Citation
- 1 WLR 29
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Contract administration
- Summary
-
The defendants were estate developers who agreed to construct a semi-detached property for the claimant in 1961. Prior to construction, the defendants took architectural advice and were informed that the site was, up until 1954, used as a rubbish tip. As a result, the architect advised that either reinforced concrete raft foundations or piled foundations connected by reinforced concrete ground beams be dug. The defendants chose to ignore this advice, and construction of the property began without piled or raft foundations. Instead, the builder simply laid down spreading concrete reinforced with a 'makeshift' grillage as an underlay for the floors. In 1968 the claimant was woken at night by a loud crack. Further cracking occurred and subsequent surveys established that the property was uninhabitable and would have to be pulled down. The claimant sued the defendants for damages in 1969.
In holding that the Limitation Act 1980 did not apply so as to bar the claimant's claim, the Court of Appeal ruled that in order to establish 'fraud' it was not necessary to show that a party took active steps to conceal his wrongdoing. Rather, it was enough that such wrongdoing was either knowingly done (with nothing said to the other) or recklessly done (like the 'man who turns a blind eye') to conceal the other party's right of action.
However, if on the facts a defendant merely commits an 'honest blunder' then he can avail himself of the statute. It seems that some affectation of conscience is therefore necessary in order to prove deliberate concealment: merely pleading that the defendant 'ought to have known' of his errors is not enough.