A grand design shortlisted for a prestigious architectural award has been the focus of a dispute played out in the high court.

Sartfell Cottage was awarded the Royal Institute of British Architects’ North West award last year and was shortlisted for RIBA’s House of the Year 2019.

But a dispute arose over the project to refurbish and extend Sartfell Cottage with the owners refusing to pay invoices for work carried out by the quantity surveyor, claiming alleged breach of contract and/or professional negligence.

Now Sartfell Education Tourism Limited and Dr Peter Lillywhite have lost a protracted high court battle, with judgment awarded in favour of the quantity surveyors Magee and Company Ltd.

Dr Lillywhite, whose wife Carole stood as a candidate in last month’s Legislative Council elections, is held jointly and severally liable with Sartfell Education Tourism after their defence and counter claim were struck out.

They face paying costs including interest at 4% dating back to October 2015.

Sartfell Cottage’s owners claimed that a bill of quantities they had relied on for the construction project was erroneous and led to their incurring a loss.

But Magee and Co argued that the project had evolved from its original design.

They called for the complete disclosure of all correspondence and documentation with contract administrators, architects, other members of the design team and on-site contractors, to get a full picture of how the works proposed differed from the works actually undertaken.

Deemster John Needham noted that the monetary value of the claim and the counterclaim was not particularly high.

But he said the importance of the case was raised by having the professional reputation of a surveyor, in what is a small jurisdiction, being called into question.

In July last year Deemster Needham made an order that Sartfell Education Tourism Limited and Dr Peter Lillywhite filed a substantial list of documents by the end of the month - and if they didn’t their defence and counter-claim would be struck out.

Magee and Co argued the defendants had not fully complied with the disclosure requirement of the July 2019 order, their advocate arguing a ’half-baked’ and ’shambolic’ list of documents had been thrown together.

Mr Magee said there were omissions within the documentation making it difficult to inspect the plans as originally intended.

Dr Lillywhite’s advocate argued her client was involved in a building project for his home, not running a business - and one could not expect the same professional standards of document compilation and retention as in a commercial project.

Deemster Needham ruled it was in the interests of justice that the defence and counterclaim be struck out.