||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 113 (Jan)
|| EWCA Civ 7
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Mummery, Richards and Toulson LLJ
||Mark Cannon QC (instructed by Kennedys Solicitors) for the defendants.
||Tim Lord QC (instructed by Watmores Solicitors) for the claimants.
||20 January 2010
Contract - Breach - Causation - Defendants subcontracted by claimant to install sprinkler system in office block - Valve failed in sprinkler system causing flooding - Flooding not contained by blocked drains - Whether defendants responsible for installing the valve - Whether damage caused by failure of valve or blockage of drains - Whether damage too remote.
Contract Breach. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by a subcontractor who had fitted a valve in a sprinkler system in an office building against the decision holding it liable for damage caused by flooding when the valve failed. The contract was found to show that the defendants were responsible for fitting the valve. The damage was the result of the failure of the valve and not by the blockage of drains which might have contained the flood. The damage was not too remote a consequence of the flooding.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports