Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 328 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2013] EWHC 3059 (TCC)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court
Judge:

Mr Justice Coulson

Representation Piers Stansfield QC (instructed by Greenwoods Solicitors LLP) for GMVL, the claimant.
  Fiona Sinclair QC (instructed by Kennedys Law LLP) for Essex, the first defendant/part 20 claimant.
  Alexander Hickey (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP) for L the second defendant/fifth party.
  Simon Hargreaves QC and Karim Ghaly (instructed by Clyde & Co) for HSE, the third party.
  Roger ter Haar QC and Alexander Macpherson (instructed by Fox Hartley) for Robson, the sixth party.
Judgment Dates: 25 October 2013

Catchwords

Contract - Construction - Contractual term - Development contract - Water damage to flats being remedied - Claimant in subrogated action seeking to recover costs caused by flooding against those responsible for original design and construction of building - Whether and to what extend defendants liable for damage.

The Case

Contract Construction. The claimant brought subrogated claims against the parties who originally designed certain flats that were destroyed as a result of a water leak. No single organisation had overall control of the design, installation, supervision, inspection, testing and acceptance of the boosted mains cold water system (BMCWS). The various different contracts and subcontracts resulted in pipework systems which, on completion, varied markedly from core to core, even though they should have been the same in each. The litigation involved five parties, with different defences and claims up and down the line, depending precisely on where the parties sat in the contractual chain. The Technology and Construction Court determined the claim on the facts.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.