Joiner who installed wonky plasterboard walls in kitchen ordered to pay homeowner £20k in remedial costs

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC HAM 80
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff J Speir

Pursuer Callum Gillies raised a claim against Jack Baptie after refusing to pay him on the basis that the work he had completed was unacceptable and led to issues fitting the kitchen units. The defender in turn raised a separate action for payment of the outstanding sum of £3,191.85 on the basis that the pursuer was in breach of contract.

The case was heard by Sheriff John Speir at Hamilton Sheriff Court. R Mitchell, advocate, appeared for the pursuer and Clarity Simplicity Ltd, solicitors, provided representation for the defender.

Like funhouse mirrors

In June 2021, the pursuer and his wife decided to install a new kitchen in their home as part of a broader renovation. They purchased a new kitchen from Wren Kitchens, but the pursuer decided to employ his own contractor having been advised that this would be cheaper than employing a Wren contractor. After he contacted the defender, who was already known to him, the defender said he was interested in the job and could arrange for other tradespeople to do the plumbing, electrics, and plastering.

At a meeting between the parties on 21 June 2021, the details of the work were discussed, with a quote of £4,813 later provided, inclusive of £1,280 paid separately to the electrician. The defender took his own measurements, which were different to those taken by Wren. However, when the new plasterboard walls were installed, it caused a reduction in the length of the kitchen which caused issues with fitting all parts of the new units.

It was the pursuer’s position that the defender had failed to erect the plasterboard walls in a plumb and square manner. The pursuer likened the appearance of the walls to funhouse mirrors, and the installed kitchen units were misaligned with visible gaps. Had the defender exercised reasonable skill and care, as was an implied term of the contract per section 49(1) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, he could have obtained materials to build square walls at a modest cost.

Expert evidence was given by two chartered surveyors, Mr Welch for the pursuer and Mr Carmichael for the defender. Mr Welch considered the defender’s workmanship to be poor and that common joinery techniques of using straps, packers, and spacers would have enabled him to build square walls. The defender’s witness considered all the defects were capable of being remedied as cosmetic issues.

Considered final effect

In his decision, Sheriff Speir said of the competing assessments of the defender’s workmanship: “I have little hesitation in accepting the pursuer. In many respects he came across as querulous and prone to exaggeration. The most obvious example of that was his baroque description of the ‘butchering of the carcasses’. I have little doubt that his constant presence while the work was being carried out was an irritation to the defender. He was not however in my view a person who would create a complaint of uneven walls if they had been in that condition originally.”

However, on the express terms of the contract he added: “I have little hesitation in accepting the defender’s submission that there was no express contractual requirement to erect plumb and square walls. It follows that I reject the contrary submission on behalf of the pursuer. That submission rested on the use of the expression ‘square up the room’ which originated from the pursuer. The pursuer accepted this meant only to tidy the room up. The defender understood in those terms also. I further accept in evidence that the expression has no technical meaning in joinery.”

Considering the application of the implied term, Sheriff Speir said: “When the defender came to erect the new walls I do not accept that he acted with reasonable skill and care in simply attaching them to the wooden strapping struts he had fixed to the bare structural walls. He should at the very least have considered what the final effect would look like and if extra work was going to be required to achieve a better outcome then he should have discussed that with the pursuer.”

He added: “Mr Welch’s exposition and reasoning was coherent, consistent, and aligned with the professional standards to be expected of an expert witness. Accordingly I had little hesitation in preferring his opinion evidence over that of Mr Carmichael. I do not consider that the unfocused criticism of Mr Welch based on his being accompanied by a joiner to have any merit. There was no suggestion that Mr Welch’ opinion had been influenced by that individual whose sole and reasonable purpose was to practical assistance if required.”

Sheriff Speir concluded: “It was broadly a matter of agreement as to how the issue of quantum should be approached. If I determined the primary issue in favour of the pursuer then in terms of the joint minute the evidence of Mr Les Baird, Quantity Surveyor as to the cost of carrying out the remedial work specified by Mr Welch was agreed in the sum of £20,040. It further follows that the defender cannot be entitled to payment for the work he carried out.”

The sheriff therefore granted the order sought by the pursuer, and for the same reasons assoilzied him from the defender’s own action for payment.