Corus UK Ltd v Cavendish (UK) Ltd & Ors

Corus UK Ltd v Cavendish (UK) Ltd & Ors

The court found that the Defendants did not breach any duty of care in the asbestos removal works. The revised method was reasonable, the works were competently carried out, and any asbestos problem in 2007 was caused by the Claimant's uncontrolled works, not by any failure of the Defendants. No negligent misstatement was established. Even if there had been a breach, the claim would have been statute-barred as the Claimant could have discovered any issues with reasonable diligence under its asbestos management obligations.

Parties
Claimant: Corus UK Limited; 1st Defendant: Cavendish (UK) Limited; 3rd Defendant: Woods Building Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Limitation of Actions, Professional Liability, Asbestos Removal, Breach of Duty
Tort Contract Construction Law Negligence Limitation of Actions Professional Liability Asbestos Removal Breach of Duty

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corus UK Limited

Claimant

Cavendish (UK) Limited

1st Defendant

Woods Building Services Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants breached their duty of care in asbestos removal works
  2. 2 Whether any negligent misstatement was made by the 1st Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the claim is statute-barred under limitation law

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendants did not breach any duty of care in the asbestos removal works. The revised method was reasonable, the works were competently carried out, and any asbestos problem in 2007 was caused by the Claimant's uncontrolled works, not by any failure of the Defendants. No negligent misstatement was established. Even if there had been a breach, the claim would have been statute-barred as the Claimant could have discovered any issues with reasonable diligence under its asbestos management obligations.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed