125 OBS (Nominees1) & Anor v Lend Lease Construction (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 25 (TCC) (14 July 2017)

125 OBS (Nominees1) & Anor v Lend Lease Construction (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 25 (TCC) (14 July 2017)

The defendants failed to prove that the glass installed was properly heat soaked in accordance with the 2005 Standard, as required by the contract. The documentation provided was inadequate and, on the balance of expert evidence, the high rate of spontaneous failures was inconsistent with proper compliance. The claimants did not accept the risk of such failures contractually. Therefore, the defendants are liable for the cost of remedial works and associated losses.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 25 (TCC)
Parties
Claimants: 125 OBS (Nominees1) & anr; Defendants: Lend Lease Construction (Europe) Limited & anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2017
Procedural Posture
TCC Commercial Construction Dispute / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimants
Legal Topics
Defective Works, Design and Build Contracts, Product Liability, Damages, Expert Evidence
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Defective Works Design and Build Contracts Product Liability Damages Expert Evidence

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

125 OBS (Nominees1) & anr

Claimants

Lend Lease Construction (Europe) Limited & anr

Defendants

Procedural Posture

TCC Commercial Construction Dispute / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants complied with contractual obligations regarding heat soaking of glass under the 2005 Standard
  2. 2 Whether the failures of glass panes were due to breach of contract or inherent risk
  3. 3 Extent of liability for damages arising from spontaneous glass failures

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to prove that the glass installed was properly heat soaked in accordance with the 2005 Standard, as required by the contract. The documentation provided was inadequate and, on the balance of expert evidence, the high rate of spontaneous failures was inconsistent with proper compliance. The claimants did not accept the risk of such failures contractually. Therefore, the defendants are liable for the cost of remedial works and associated losses.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimants

Orders

  • Defendants to pay damages of £14,753,195.16 to the Claimants
  • Interest to be calculated and added to the damages award