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 asbestos removal method was reasonable and agreed by the Claimant, that the works were carried out to a competent standard, and that any residual asbestos was minimal, properly encapsulated, and not causative of the later problem. The court rejected the negligent misstatement claim, finding no misleading statement or reasonable reliance. The contractual claim was statute-barred. The 2007 asbestos issue was caused by later uncontrolled works, not by breach of duty in 1997.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2058 (QB)
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
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Asbestos Removal, Negligence, Breach of Contract, Limitation of Actions, Negligent Misstatement
Contract Law Tort Law Construction Law Asbestos Removal Negligence Breach of Contract Limitation of Actions Negligent Misstatement

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 3 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

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached contractual or tortious duties in the asbestos removal 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 claim is statute-barred by limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the revised asbestos removal method was reasonable and agreed by the Claimant, that the works were carried out to a competent standard, and that any residual asbestos was minimal, properly encapsulated, and not causative of the later problem. The court rejected the negligent misstatement claim, finding no misleading statement or reasonable reliance. The contractual claim was statute-barred. The 2007 asbestos issue was caused by later uncontrolled works, not by breach of duty in 1997.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against the 1st and 3rd Defendants dismissed
  • No order as to quantum; liability only determined