The Central London County Court has dismissed the Claimant’s breach of contract claim and upheld the Defendants’ substantial counterclaim following a trial concerning alleged delays and defective workmanship.

A central issue was the identification of the contractual terms. The Claimant produced no written contract beyond a quotation describing the scope of works. No completion date was specified. Approximately two months into the project, the Defendants agreed to aim for completion within three weeks. The Claimant terminated the contract just three days later.

The Court found the Claimant’s expert evidence to be of limited assistance, noting during cross‑examination that his grasp of the CPR Part 35 obligation was concerning. Importantly, the expert accepted that incomplete evidence is not equivalent to evidence of substandard work.

Accepting submissions advanced on behalf of the Defendants, the Court held that this was a service contract, and that reasonable time for performance is a question of fact. On the evidence, the Claimant had acted unreasonably in preventing the Defendants from completing the works, amounting to a repudiatory breach.

The claim was dismissed. The Court held that the Claimant had not proved that the Defendants failed to perform within a reasonable time. The counterclaim for a significant sum was allowed, with the Court finding that the Claimant’s premature termination and refusal to permit the Defendants to remedy any issues constituted repudiation.

Horaine Henry acted for the successful Defendants, instructed by Wyeth & Paul Law Associates.