The Client Must Get Who It's Promised

Consultants' appointments and construction contracts often

specify that certain individuals will work on a given project. This

is because the client wants to ensure that, say, the big name

architect he engages actually leads the design of his new building

or the contractor's project manager he knows and trusts is the

same person who oversees the works. Without a material

representation or contractual provision as to who will be involved,

the consultant or contractor usually has free rein as to how it

resources the project.

A recent case underlines the significance of assurances that

certain people will be involved on a particular project.

Fitzroy Robinson were engaged as the architects for the

development of three iconic buildings in London and

Buckinghamshire. The Fitzroy team assigned to the project was led

by Mr Jeremy Blake. However, while it was estimated that the

project would take around three years, Mr Blake had in fact

tendered his resignation before Fitzroy's appointment was

concluded. This meant he would be available to the project for no

more than the first year.

The Court found that Fitzroy did not tell the client that Mr

Blake was leaving because it feared losing the appointment. Mr

Blake was the principal reason the client had contacted Fitzroy in

the first instance and one of the main reasons it was appointed.

The judge agreed that Mr Blake's involvement was fundamental to

the client's decision to engage Fitzroy and had they known of

his early departure from the project an alternative firm of

architects may have been appointed. According to the Court, Fitzroy

should have brought Mr Blake's decision to the client's

attention but instead a conscious decision was made to withhold

this information. This amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation and

deceit.

The client is now entitled to damages for the losses it suffered

as a result. These may be modest. Even on the basis that but for

the misrepresentation/deceit Fitzroy may not have been appointed,

it was not proven that Mr Blake's departure caused any delay to

the project. The client's entitlement may be limited to a

reduction in Fitzroy's fees representing the disruption within

Fitzroy and duplication of its work arising from Mr Blake's

departure.

The reputational issues raised by this case are obvious. But, to

compound matters, the Court also found that Fitzroy's chief

executive "knowingly and dishonestly failed to correct the

false representation as to Mr Blake's involvement...