The London Borough of Southwark v Samuel David Oyeyinka
Decision date: 9 June 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 258 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether Southwark complied with the s.20 consultation requirements when it served stage 1 and stage 2 notices describing "window repairs/renewals" while contract documents available for inspection contained two priced alternatives (a lower provisional repair and a higher replacement). The Upper Tribunal held the notices, read with the accessible contract documents, adequately described the works so the landlord complied with the Regulations, and allowed recovery of the higher contract sums (ordering the tenant to pay the outstanding £6,054.18). The LVT’s earlier limitation of recovery to the original estimate plus 10% and its pro rata reduction were overturned.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
A notice that describes proposed works in general terms can satisfy the s.20 description requirement if, when read with contractual documentation made available for inspection, it fairly directs consultees to the alternative priced options; where the tender documents already envisaged and priced a more extensive alternative, implementing that priced alternative does not automatically require fresh consultation.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment observes that provisional sums in building contracts commonly serve as placeholders that may be superseded by more extensive works discovered on site, and criticises tribunals for adopting internally inconsistent reasoning (for example finding non-compliance yet permitting reduced recovery) — guidance as to good practice rather than binding legal principle.