Bovis Lend Lease Ltd v RD Fire Protection Ltd

Bovis Lend Lease Ltd v RD Fire Protection Ltd

Bovis is precluded from recovering from RD Fire and Baris for defective works under indemnity, damages, or restitution where it cannot prove what part of the global settlement with Braehead is attributable to their breaches. The settlement creates a ceiling on recovery, and in the absence of evidence or allocation, Bovis has failed to prove loss. Claims for impairment of contractual rights or performance interest are not sustainable in law or on the facts post-settlement.

Parties
Claimant: Bovis Lend Lease Limited (formerly Bovis Construction Limited); First Defendant: R D Fire Protection Limited; Second Defendant: Huthco Limited; Second Defendant: Baris UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction/contract) / Preliminary Issues Judgment on Effect of Settlement Agreement
Outcome
Bovis' claims for indemnity, damages, abatement, and performance interest against RD Fire and Baris are precluded/struck out to the extent they rely on unallocated or unproven loss from the settlement; permission to amend pleadings is limited as specified.
Legal Topics
Damages for Breach of Contract, Indemnity Clauses, Settlement Agreements, Causation and Remoteness, Performance Interest, Restitutionary Claims
Construction Law Contract Law Damages for Breach of Contract Indemnity Clauses Settlement Agreements Causation and Remoteness Performance Interest Restitutionary Claims

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bovis Lend Lease Limited (formerly Bovis Construction Limited)

Claimant

R D Fire Protection Limited

First Defendant

Huthco Limited

Second Defendant

Baris UK Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction/contract) / Preliminary Issues Judgment on Effect of Settlement Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a global settlement agreement between main contractor and employer preclude recovery from sub-contractors for defective works?
  2. 2 Can the main contractor recover damages from sub-contractors where the settlement sum is not attributable to their breaches?
  3. 3 Does the settlement break the chain of causation for claims against sub-contractors?

Ratio Decidendi

Bovis is precluded from recovering from RD Fire and Baris for defective works under indemnity, damages, or restitution where it cannot prove what part of the global settlement with Braehead is attributable to their breaches. The settlement creates a ceiling on recovery, and in the absence of evidence or allocation, Bovis has failed to prove loss. Claims for impairment of contractual rights or performance interest are not sustainable in law or on the facts post-settlement.

Court Disposition

Bovis' claims for indemnity, damages, abatement, and performance interest against RD Fire and Baris are precluded/struck out to the extent they rely on unallocated or unproven loss from the settlement; permission to amend pleadings is limited as specified.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11.2 of each reply struck out.
  • Permission to amend replies granted save for specified paragraphs relating to the 22% discount method, for which permission is refused.