Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 849 (QB) (03 March 2006)

Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 849 (QB) (03 March 2006)

Both Humphries and Thistle are liable to contribute to the damages and costs paid by FAFS to the claimant. Humphries, as main contractor, failed to call for a proper risk assessment or supervise safety, despite knowledge of the external cable route option. Thistle, as building owner, had special knowledge of Railtrack's permit system and failed to make clear that access to the roof was prohibited without compliance, contributing to the accident. The contractual indemnity did not protect Humphries from its own negligence. Blame is apportioned: FAFS 50%, Humphries 30%, Thistle 20%.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 849
Parties
Claimant: Barbara Gray; First Defendant: Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Limited; Second Defendant: E. H. Humphries (Norton) Limited; Third Defendant: Thistle Hotels Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Contribution Claim Under Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 / Judgment After Trial of Contribution Proceedings
Outcome
Contribution ordered; Humphries and Thistle to contribute to damages and costs paid by FAFS to the claimant, apportioned 30% and 20% respectively.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Contribution Between Tortfeasors, Contractual Indemnity, Duties of Main Contractor, Duties of Occupier, Health and Safety at Work
Tort Law Contract Law Health and Safety Law Employer's Liability Negligence Contribution Between Tortfeasors Contractual Indemnity Duties of Main Contractor +2 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Gray

Claimant

Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Limited

First Defendant

E. H. Humphries (Norton) Limited

Second Defendant

Thistle Hotels Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contribution Claim Under Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 / Judgment After Trial of Contribution Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Humphries and Thistle are liable to contribute to damages and costs paid by FAFS to the claimant under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
  2. 2 Whether Humphries is entitled to a contractual indemnity from FAFS for its own negligence or breach of statutory duty
  3. 3 Whether Thistle, as building owner, owed a duty of care to Mr Gray in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Both Humphries and Thistle are liable to contribute to the damages and costs paid by FAFS to the claimant. Humphries, as main contractor, failed to call for a proper risk assessment or supervise safety, despite knowledge of the external cable route option. Thistle, as building owner, had special knowledge of Railtrack's permit system and failed to make clear that access to the roof was prohibited without compliance, contributing to the accident. The contractual indemnity did not protect Humphries from its own negligence. Blame is apportioned: FAFS 50%, Humphries 30%, Thistle 20%.

Court Disposition

Contribution ordered; Humphries and Thistle to contribute to damages and costs paid by FAFS to the claimant, apportioned 30% and 20% respectively.

Orders

  • FAFS to bear 50% of liability for damages and costs to the claimant.
  • Humphries to bear 30% of liability for damages and costs to the claimant.