Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd v Essex Services Group Plc & Ors

Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd v Essex Services Group Plc & Ors

The indemnity clause in the sub-sub-sub-contract is wide enough to require Robson to indemnify HSE for its liability to Essex, even where HSE failed to detect Robson's workmanship breaches. The clause is not confined to breaches undetectable upon reasonable inspection. Robson's workmanship failures were the principal cause of the Core 2 flood, and HSE's failure to inspect does not defeat its claim under the indemnity clause. Alternatively, HSE is entitled to recover an equivalent sum as damages for breach of contract.

Parties
Claimant: Greenwich Millennium Village Limited; First Defendant: Essex Services Group PLC; Second Defendant/fifth Party: Hoare Lea (a firm); Third Party/respondent: HS Environmental Services Limited (in administration); Appellant/sixth Party: DG Robson Mechanical Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indemnity Clauses, Breach of Contract, Liability Apportionment, Interpretation of Contracts
Contract Law Construction Law Indemnity Clauses Breach of Contract Liability Apportionment Interpretation of Contracts

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greenwich Millennium Village Limited

Claimant

Essex Services Group PLC

First Defendant

Hoare Lea (a firm)

Second Defendant/fifth Party

HS Environmental Services Limited (in administration)

Third Party/respondent

DG Robson Mechanical Services Limited

Appellant/sixth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indemnity clause in the sub-sub-sub-contract allows recovery by HSE against Robson despite HSE's own fault
  2. 2 Whether Robson was responsible for the closed isolation valve (IV) and the installation of the non-return valve (NRV)
  3. 3 Whether Robson's installation of the NRV was a breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The indemnity clause in the sub-sub-sub-contract is wide enough to require Robson to indemnify HSE for its liability to Essex, even where HSE failed to detect Robson's workmanship breaches. The clause is not confined to breaches undetectable upon reasonable inspection. Robson's workmanship failures were the principal cause of the Core 2 flood, and HSE's failure to inspect does not defeat its claim under the indemnity clause. Alternatively, HSE is entitled to recover an equivalent sum as damages for breach of contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Robson's appeal is dismissed.
  • HSE is entitled to recover against Robson under the indemnity clause.