Trustees of Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Management Ltd [2012] EWHC 2137
Whether a duty of care was owed by a project manager to an employer in respect of ensuring that a contract containing a liquidated damages clause was agreed with a contractor
Facts
The claimant employed the defendant to project manage the building of three construction projects on its property. The works were carried out by a contractor and were completed to a satisfactory standard, but significantly later than the claimant had envisaged. The contractor stated that it was entitled to an extension of time. The works were carried out under letters of intent, with the contract only being agreed through mediation after the works were complete. The contract contained a clause limiting the claimant’s ability to claim for delay. The claimant sought damages against the defendant on the basis that the defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in the exercise of the build and procurement process from the contractor and that this failure had caused the claimant loss.
Issue
The issue in this context was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant in respect of ensuring that it was entitled to liquidated damages for delay in the agreement with the contractor.
Held
It was held that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the claimant and had failed in that duty by failing to exert sufficient pressure on the contractor to finalise the contract. The breach caused loss because if there was no breach the claimant would have taken steps to ensure that it was entitled to liquidated damages and there was a real possibility that the contractor would have agreed to those terms.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Trustees of Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Management Ltd [2012] EWHC 2137 (TCC), a judgment of Akenhead J in the Technology and Construction Court. The core legal principles described — that a project manager can owe a duty of care in contract and/or tort to an employer, and that failure to finalise a contract containing adequate liquidated damages provisions can found liability for breach of that duty — remain good law. No subsequent appellate authority appears to have overruled or materially qualified the decision. The case continues to be cited in construction law contexts as an illustration of the scope of a project manager’s professional duties. There are no relevant statutory changes affecting the principles discussed. Readers should note that the article focuses narrowly on the duty of care and causation findings; the case also involved detailed analysis of the assessment of loss and the evidential burden on causation, which are not covered here.
