Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

St Martins Property Corporation v Sir Robert McAlpine

350 words (1 pages) Case Summary

21st Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

St Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, 115

Contract – Building – Third Party Entitlement – Assignment – Standard form Contract


St Martins, the first plaintiff, began working on a development which included shops, offices and flats. A 150-year leasehold was granted on completion by the council. St Martins entered into a contract with McAlpine. The contract stated that the contract could not be assigned unless there had been written consent of the contractor. The first plaintiff assigned their contract with McAlpine to the second plaintiff all of their rights under the contract. McAlpine did not consent to the assignment. Sometime after the assignment, the building was found to be defective with remedial work required. The first and second plaintiffs brought action against McAlpine. Initially the assignment was held to be ineffective and the first plaintiff was only entitled to nominal damages. The second defendants in Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1993] UKHL 4 and McAlpine cross-appealed.


Whether the assignment of the contract gave rise to an entitlement for substantial damages to the second plaintiff and whether both of the defendants could cross-appeal for a breach of contract.


The cross-appeal by the defendants was dismissed. The original assignee to the contract was entitled to the damages granted, as under the terms of the contract, St Martins would have been entitled to damages for any defect that caused them to suffer loss. Even though the contract did not allow for the assignment of rights, as consent to an assignment was not obtained, St Martins were entitled to seek damages and enforce against the defendants on the behalf of the second plaintiff (the third party), was unable to acquire rights under it even though their loss was foreseeable.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles