Author Archives: Jessica van der Meer

Judgment alert: UKSC decision on design and installation of windfarm foundations

MT Højgaard A/S (Respondent) v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and another (Appellants)

The issue in this case is whether a contract for the design and installation of foundations for an offshore windfarm in the Solway Firth imposed a fitness for purpose obligation on the contractor amounting to a warranty that said foundations would have a service life of 20 years.

The UK Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the windfarm foundations neither had a lifetime of twenty years, nor was their design fit to ensure one.

Access the UKSC judgment  here

For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

For Court’s press summary, click here

Comments Off

Filed under Breach of contract, Contractual interpretation

Like Shattered Glass: 125 OBS (Nominees) & Another v Lend Lease Construction (Europe) Ltd and Another [2017]

A contractor was ordered to pay £14.7 million in damages following a failure of toughened glass used to clad a central London office block. The breakages were caused by the contractor’s breach of its contractual obligations to heat soak all of the glass.
Continue reading

Comments Off

Filed under Breach of contract, Contractual interpretation

Electronic filing from 25 April 2017 for all Rolls Building jurisdictions

From 25 April 2017 when term-time resumes, it will no longer be possible to issue claims or applications, or to file documents, on paper; all issuing and filings in any of the jurisdictions of the Rolls Building instead have to be made through the website.

The website can be accessed via this link.

 

The Rolls Building jurisdictions relevant to property damage include:

  • TCC
  • Admiralty and Mercantile Court
  • Commercial Court

the other jurisdictions (less relevant to property damage) include the Chancery Division, IPEC, Patents Court, Financial List and the Bankruptcy and Companies Court.

 

Comments Off

Filed under Procedure

Theoretical Justifications for the “Reliance Bar”: Howmet Ltd v Economy Devices Ltd.

Neil Moody QC and Timothy Killen have published an article on the decision in Howmet in the February/March edition of the Construction Law Journal (Citation (2017) 33 Const L.J. Issue 1), published by Sweet and Maxwell.

You can read it here.

Comments Off

Filed under Causation, Intervening Acts

New Courts: Business and Property Courts

From the press release on the Judiciary website:

“From June of this year, the specialist civil courts are to be known as the “Business and Property Courts of England and Wales”.

The Business and Property Courts will be the new name for England and Wales’ international dispute resolution jurisdictions and will act as a single umbrella for business specialist courts across England and Wales.

It will encompass the specialist courts and lists of the High Court:

  • the Commercial Court, (including the Admiralty Court),
  • the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”), and
  • the courts of the Chancery Division (including those dealing with financial services, intellectual property, competition, and insolvency).

The new arrangements will preserve the familiar practices and procedures of these courts, whilst allowing for more flexible cross-deployment of judges with suitable expertise and experience to sit on appropriate business and property cases.”

 

Comments Off

Filed under Procedure

Expert reliance: Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Co Ltd

Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 218 TCC

This case involved a fire at the Claimant’s waste processing plant. The Claimant sought to recover approximately £1.5 million in damages from the Defendant insurers. During the first CMC, the Claimant sought to prohibit the Defendant insurer from relying on their chosen fire expert, Mr Steven Braund, a forensic expert employed by Hawkins.

Continue reading

Comments Off

Filed under Causation, Expert Evidence, Fires

UKSC decision on insurance policy exclusion clauses

IMPACT FUNDING SOLUTIONS LTD v AIG EUROPE LTD (FORMERLY CHARTIS INSURANCE (UK) LTD) (2016)

Last week the UKSC handed down judgment in a case that involved the construction of exclusion or exemption clauses in insurance policies.

Continue reading

Comments Off

Filed under Breach of contract, Contractual interpretation, Insurance

UKSC hands down decision on fraudulent devices rule – Versloot Dredging

The UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Versloot Dredging BV and Another v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG and others . You can access the full text of the decision here.

In brief, the Court determined (by a majority of 4 to 1) that the ‘fraudulent device’ rule does not apply to collateral lies, which are immaterial to the insured’s right to recover. Lord Sumption gave the lead judgment. Lord Clarke, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson give concurring judgments. Lord Mance gives a dissenting judgment.

Our previous blog post on Versloot can be found here.

An in-depth analysis of Lord Sumption and Lord Mance’s judgments will be posted shortly. Watch this space.

Comments Off

Filed under Breach of contract, Contractual interpretation, Floods

London Riots property damage case appealed to the UK Supreme Court

On 21 January 2016 the UK Supreme Court will hear the appeal in Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and other companies v Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.  Continue reading

Comments Off

Filed under Fires, Insurance

Fraudulent devices case to be heard by the UK Supreme Court

Versloot Dredging BV and Another v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG and others

The UK Supreme Court will hear the appeal in Versloot on 16 March 2016. In the previous judgment, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered whether the rule whereby a fraudulent claim deprived the insured of any right to recover anything applied also in the case of ‘fraudulent devices’, namely statements made recklessly or with knowledge of their untruth to support a claim that was honestly believed to be true. In dismissing the claimant owners’ appeal, the court held that the rule was to be applied in such circumstances and that it was proportionate for it to do so.  Continue reading

Comments Off

Filed under Breach of contract, Contractual interpretation, Floods