MT Højgaard A/S v E.On Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd & Anor  UKSC 59
The proceedings in this case arose from the fact that the foundation structures of two offshore wind farms, which were designed and installed by MT Højgaard A/S (“MTH”), failed shortly after completion of the project. The issue for the court to determine was whether MTH was liable for this failure.
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
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.
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
Thanks to all those who attended 2TG’s Damage Day 2016. The day was a great success, with a record number of attendees.
A special thanks to the Hon. Mr Justice Coulson who delivered the keynote speech.
Many thanks to our speakers:
- Howard Palmer QC who spoke on the problems of causation in contract and negligence based property damages cases
- Jessica van der Meer who spoke on knowledge of malfunction and attribution of knowledge in property damage cases
- Sonia Nolten who spoke on the meaning of “reasonable opportunity to abate” in subsidence claims.
- George Hilton who spoke on procedure & awards under the Party Wall Act 1996
- Ben Hobby FCA, Dip CII, of RGL Forensics who provided the expert perspective on proving a loss of profits calculation
- Daniel Crowley & Isabel Barter who spoke on expert evidence & the Ocensa Pipeline Group Litigation Action
- Andrew Miller QC who spoke on the changing face of mediation in property damage claims.
You can catch some of the highlights of Damage Day 2016 on 2TG’s twitter account: @2TempleGardens
We look forward to seeing you at Damage Day 2017
Filed under ADR, Breach of contract, Causation, Contribution, Duty of Care, Expert Evidence, Fires, Floods, Insurance, Limitation, Natural Disaster, Nuisance, Party Walls, Procedure
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.
As reported last week the Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of the claimant shipowners in Versloot Dredging BV and another (Appellants) v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG and others (The “DC Merwestone”)  UKSC45. By a 4:1 majority the Supreme Court held that the fraudulent claims rule did not apply to collateral lies made in support of an insurance claim where those lies were irrelevant to the existence or amount of a justified claim.
The shipowners were entitled to payment of over 3 million euros in respect of damage caused to their ship’s engine by the ingress of sea water. Their manager’s lies regarding the timing of the bilge alarms, which he told in support of the claim, were irrelevant to the owners’ entitlement to payment under the policy. The false statements were intended to reassure insurers that the ship was not unseaworthy and, in particular, that its alarm systems were working satisfactorily and to draw insurers’ focus away from such matters. Continue reading
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.
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
On 4 November 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the conjoined appeals of Cavendish and ParkingEye (judgment here). At the outset of its judgment, the Supreme Court noted that,“[t]he penalty rule in England is an ancient, haphazardly constructed edifice which has not weathered well”  and later, that, “the law relating to penalties has become a prisoner of artificial categorisation” . The remainder of its 316 paragraph judgment sets out the Supreme Court’s comprehensive review and restatement of the law in relation to penalties which is compulsory reading for practitioners across all commercial practice areas, including property damage where liquidated damages clauses (and the consequent disputes over whether they are void as penalty clauses) are frequently encountered.