Simaan General Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd [1988] EWCA Civ 15 (17 February 1988)

Simaan General Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd [1988] EWCA Civ 15 (17 February 1988)

A supplier does not owe a duty of care in tort to a main contractor for pure economic loss absent physical damage or proprietary/possessory interest; the contractual chain provides adequate remedies, and Junior Books does not extend to such circumstances.

Citation
[1988] EWCA Civ 15
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Simaan General Contracting Company; Appellant (defendant): Pilkington Glass Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Official Referee's Decision on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Economic Loss, Duty of Care, Product Liability, Privity of Contract
Tort Law Contract Law Negligence Economic Loss Duty of Care Product Liability Privity 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 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simaan General Contracting Company

Respondent (plaintiff)

Pilkington Glass Limited

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Official Referee's Decision on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a supplier owes a duty of care in tort to a main contractor for pure economic loss absent physical damage or proprietary interest
  2. 2 Applicability of Junior Books Ltd. v. Veitchi Co. Ltd. to claims for economic loss without physical damage

Ratio Decidendi

A supplier does not owe a duty of care in tort to a main contractor for pure economic loss absent physical damage or proprietary/possessory interest; the contractual chain provides adequate remedies, and Junior Books does not extend to such circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the defendants
  • Application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused