Trebor Bassett Holdings & Ors v ADT Fire [2012] EWCA Civ 249 (01 February 2012)

Trebor Bassett Holdings & Ors v ADT Fire [2012] EWCA Civ 249 (01 February 2012)

Permission to appeal was granted on points of law relating to causation, implied terms, and quality, but refused on issues of contractual scope and breach as they were factual findings. The court held that the claimants only needed to show that a system should have been designed to prevent the fire, not that it was possible, and that the defendants bore the burden if impossibility was asserted.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 249
Parties
Respondents/claimants: Trebor Bassett Holdings & Ors; Appellant/defendant: ADT Fire
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Directions on Scope of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed (permission to appeal granted in part)
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Causation, Limitation of Liability, Implied Terms, Breach of Contract
Contract Law Tort Law Negligence Contributory Negligence Causation Limitation of Liability Implied Terms Breach 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trebor Bassett Holdings & Ors

Respondents/claimants

ADT Fire

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Directions on Scope of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's breach of contract, in failing to comply with the relevant British Standard, defeats the defence of contributory negligence
  2. 2 Whether the judge was correct on his decision as to quality
  3. 3 Whether there were implied terms of satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was granted on points of law relating to causation, implied terms, and quality, but refused on issues of contractual scope and breach as they were factual findings. The court held that the claimants only needed to show that a system should have been designed to prevent the fire, not that it was possible, and that the defendants bore the burden if impossibility was asserted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (permission to appeal granted in part)

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted to claimants on grounds relating to quality, implied terms, and causation.
  • Permission to appeal refused to defendants on contractual scope and breach.