To Litigate Or Not To Litigate?

Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd

The 50 page judgment in this case is a stark lesson in some of the realities and risks of litigation, and the vital importance of proper preparation for all concerned. None of the parties emerged very well from the judgment, and one of Fitzroy Robinson's witnesses in particular was severely criticised by the Judge.

The Background

Fitzroy Robinson was employed as architect in respect of the design and development of buildings in Piccadilly, London into an exclusive private members' club, and of Mentmore Towers in Buckinghamshire into a country house hotel. Fitzroy Robinson sued its employer in respect of each project for unpaid fees, and the employers then counterclaimed and alleged that Fitzroy Robinson was negligent in its handling of the application for planning permission for the Piccadilly site, that Fitzroy Robinson was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit in inducing the employers to employ the firm, and that Fitzroy Robinson had not done the work for which it was seeking payment.

The misrepresentation and deceit centred on the fact that a Mr Blake, the project architect, had tendered his resignation during the course of the negotiations with the employers, and this fact was not revealed to the employers until several months later. The employers said that Fitzroy Robinson would not have been employed if they had known that Mr Blake was leaving, such was his reputation and his importance to the project in their eyes.

After a nine day trial, the cost of which will be several hundred thousand pounds, the Judge ultimately found that:

Fitzroy Robinson was entitled to some fees, but that part of its claim sought payment for work which had not been done and they had also been paid for work which they had not done and the fee claim had to be reduced to take this into account Fitzroy Robinson was not negligent Fitzroy Robinson was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit, but the damages recoverable by the employers would be modest The judgment did not make new law, but the Judge was scathing in his criticism of some of the individuals involved.

What lessons can be learned from this case?

1. Witness statements must be true, must not contradict the documentation, and must not omit material facts

   These requirements may seem obvious, but in this case the Judge was highly critical of the evidence of Fitzroy Robinson's CEO, Mr Thompson, and decided that his witness statement was...