Author Archives: George Hilton

Goodlife Foods Ltd v Hall Fire Protection Ltd [2017] EWHC 767 (TCC)

This is a useful decision of the Court upholding the application of a broadly drafted clause excluding property damage liability in negligence on the part of a supplier of a fire prevention mechanism which failed.  Continue reading

Comments Off

Filed under Breach of contract, Contractual interpretation, Exclusion clauses, Fires

Negligent advice by surveyors: Scott v EAR Sheppard Consulting Civil & Structural Engineers Ltd [2016] EWHC 1949 (TCC)

In Scott v EAR Sheppard Consulting Civil & Structural Engineers Ltd [2016] EWHC 1949 (TCC), the TCC visited the basics of the standard of care owed by surveyors.

Cs instructed surveyors, D1, to inspect the condition of a Property prior to its purchase. After reading D1s’ report, Cs purchased the Property and construction works at the Property were commenced on Cs’ behalf. The construction works were stopped by the local authority due to the Property’s existing poor structural condition; in particular, dangerous tilting of the walls.  Continue reading

Comments Off

Filed under Duty of Care, Expert Evidence

Bell v Northumbrian Water [2016] EWHC 133 (TCC)

This case (judgment here) is of particular interest since it is the latest in a developing line of authority that explores the scope of the principle in Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (2003) UKHL 66 (in Marcic it was held that common law liability of a statutory sewerage undertaker does not exist if its imposition is inconsistent with the statutory scheme for liability and enforcement under the Water Industry Act 1991). Continue reading

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized

Pumping of flood waters onto farmer’s land by local Council constitutes nuisance

Robert Lindley Limited v East Riding of Yorkshire [2016] UKUT 0006 (LC)

The Claimant company brought a claim against East Riding of Yorkshire Council (“the Council”) in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) under ss 14A(11), 14(5) & (6) Land Drainage Act 1991 (“LDA 1991”) in respect of flood damage to the Claimant’s carrot crops resulting from floodwater pumping operations.

The pumping had been carried out under the Council’s control using pumps provided by the Environmental Agency (“EA”) and the Fire Service. The objective was to divert floodwaters from a local built-up area. Continue reading

Comments Off

Filed under Floods, Statutory Interpretation