Corus UK Ltd v Cavendish (UK) Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 2058 (QB) (07 August 2009)

Corus UK Ltd v Cavendish (UK) Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 2058 (QB) (07 August 2009)

The court found that the revised method of asbestos removal and encapsulation was reasonable and agreed by all parties, that the works were carried out competently, and that any residual asbestos was minimal, properly encapsulated, and did not cause the later problem. The 1st Defendant did not make any negligent misstatement as alleged. The contractual claim was statute-barred. The 'asbestos problem' in 2007 was caused by uncontrolled works after the original project, not by breach of duty by the Defendants.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2058
Parties
Claimant: Corus UK Limited; 1st Defendant: Cavendish (UK) Limited; 3rd Defendant: Woods Building Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Tort/contract (asbestos Removal Dispute) / Trial Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Asbestos Removal, Negligence, Breach of Contract, Limitation of Actions, Negligent Misstatement, Construction Contracts, Health and Safety Compliance
Contract Law Tort Law Construction Law Health and Safety Law Asbestos Removal Negligence Breach of Contract Limitation of Actions +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corus UK Limited

Claimant

Cavendish (UK) Limited

1st Defendant

Woods Building Services Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort/contract (asbestos Removal Dispute) / Trial Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached contractual or tortious duties in asbestos removal and encapsulation works in 1997
  2. 2 Whether any negligent misstatement was made by the 1st Defendant regarding the efficacy of the revised asbestos removal method
  3. 3 Whether the claims are statute-barred by limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the revised method of asbestos removal and encapsulation was reasonable and agreed by all parties, that the works were carried out competently, and that any residual asbestos was minimal, properly encapsulated, and did not cause the later problem. The 1st Defendant did not make any negligent misstatement as alleged. The contractual claim was statute-barred. The 'asbestos problem' in 2007 was caused by uncontrolled works after the original project, not by breach of duty by the Defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against the 1st and 3rd Defendants dismissed
  • No finding of breach of duty or negligent misstatement