MT Højgaard A/S v E.On Climate And Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 407 (30 April 2015)

MT Højgaard A/S v E.On Climate And Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 407 (30 April 2015)

The contract, properly construed, did not contain a warranty for a 20-year service life; compliance with J101 and exercise of reasonable skill and care was sufficient. MTH was in breach of testing obligations under TR paragraph 10.5.1 and J101 section 9 paragraph D101, but those breaches did not cause any loss because required testing would not have revealed the defect. Only nominal damages were recoverable.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 407
Parties
Appellant/claimant: MT Højgaard A/S; Respondent/defendant: E. ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited; Respondent/defendant: E. ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg West Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal both allowed. Declarations in favour of E. ON set aside. Judgment for E. ON for nominal damages only.
Legal Topics
Design and Build Contracts, Contract Interpretation, Fitness for Purpose, Compliance With Standards, Damages for Breach of Contract
Construction Law Contract Law Design and Build Contracts Contract Interpretation Fitness for Purpose Compliance With Standards Damages for Breach of Contract

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

Parties

MT Højgaard A/S

Appellant/claimant

E. ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited

Respondent/defendant

E. ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg West Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contractor warranted a 20-year service life for the foundations
  2. 2 Whether compliance with J101 standard was sufficient to discharge contractual obligations
  3. 3 Whether failure to carry out required testing constituted a breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The contract, properly construed, did not contain a warranty for a 20-year service life; compliance with J101 and exercise of reasonable skill and care was sufficient. MTH was in breach of testing obligations under TR paragraph 10.5.1 and J101 section 9 paragraph D101, but those breaches did not cause any loss because required testing would not have revealed the defect. Only nominal damages were recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal both allowed. Declarations in favour of E. ON set aside. Judgment for E. ON for nominal damages only.

Orders

  • Declarations granted in favour of E. ON set aside
  • Judgment substituted for E. ON for £10 nominal damages