MT HØJGAARD A/S v E.ON CLIMATE AND RENEWABLES

MT HØJGAARD A/S v E.ON CLIMATE AND RENEWABLES

The contract, properly construed, did not contain a warranty for a 20-year service life; compliance with J101 and Technical Requirements did not impose a double obligation to guarantee operational life. Breaches of testing requirements did not cause loss as testing would not have revealed the defect.

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
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contractual Obligations, Fit for Purpose Warranties, Compliance With Industry Standards, Design and Build Contracts, Nominal Damages
Contract Law Construction Law Interpretation of Contractual Obligations Fit for Purpose Warranties Compliance With Industry Standards Design and Build Contracts Nominal Damages

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 2 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

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contractor warranted a 20-year service life for the foundations
  2. 2 Whether compliance with J101 and Technical Requirements imposed a double obligation
  3. 3 Whether failure to carry out testing constituted breach causing loss

Ratio Decidendi

The contract, properly construed, did not contain a warranty for a 20-year service life; compliance with J101 and Technical Requirements did not impose a double obligation to guarantee operational life. Breaches of testing requirements did not cause loss as testing would not have revealed the defect.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed

Orders

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