London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) v Halcrow Gilbert Associates Ltd

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) v Halcrow Gilbert Associates Ltd

Halcrow was negligent only in failing to carry out a limited review of its design after the June 2004 fire, but not in the original design, specification, or other respects alleged. However, LFEPA failed to prove it intended or it was reasonable to reinstate The Firehouse, given the problems of smoke stratification and the Westemp panels, and the lack of support from its own training department. Therefore, LFEPA was not entitled to recover the cost of reinstatement or consequential losses. Claims against Lorne Stewart also failed as the contractual mechanism for recovery was not triggered.

Parties
Claimant: London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; First Defendant: Halcrow Gilbert Associates Limited; Second Defendant: Halcrow Group Limited; Third Defendant/third Party: Lorne Stewart PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract and Tort) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Measure of Damages, Negligence Standard, Limitation of Liability, Remedial Schemes, Risk Assessment, Breach of Contract, Mitigation of Loss
Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Construction Law Measure of Damages Negligence Standard Limitation of Liability Remedial Schemes +3 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

Claimant

Halcrow Gilbert Associates Limited

First Defendant

Halcrow Group Limited

Second Defendant

Lorne Stewart PLC

Third Defendant/third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract and Tort) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Halcrow was negligent in design and supervision of ductwork for The Firehouse
  2. 2 Whether Lorne Stewart was liable for defective workmanship and materials
  3. 3 What is the appropriate measure of damages and whether LFEPA is entitled to recover reinstatement costs

Ratio Decidendi

Halcrow was negligent only in failing to carry out a limited review of its design after the June 2004 fire, but not in the original design, specification, or other respects alleged. However, LFEPA failed to prove it intended or it was reasonable to reinstate The Firehouse, given the problems of smoke stratification and the Westemp panels, and the lack of support from its own training department. Therefore, LFEPA was not entitled to recover the cost of reinstatement or consequential losses. Claims against Lorne Stewart also failed as the contractual mechanism for recovery was not triggered.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • LFEPA’s claims against Halcrow for the cost of ductwork replacement and alternative fire training are rejected.
  • LFEPA’s claims against Lorne Stewart are rejected.