Howmet Ltd v Economy Devices Ltd & Ors

Howmet Ltd v Economy Devices Ltd & Ors

Howmet failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the fire was caused by a defect in the thermolevel for which EDL was responsible, or that Howmet relied on the thermolevel as a safety device at the time of the fire. Even if EDL was negligent or in breach of statutory duty, Howmet's knowledge of the device's unreliability and its actions in continuing to operate the plant without adequate safeguards meant that causation was not established. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Howmet Ltd; First Defendant: Economy Devices Limited; Second Defendant: Electrochemical Supplies Limited; Third Defendant: MJD Supplies Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (product Liability/negligence) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Causation, Contributory Negligence, Product Safety, Intermediate Examination, Chain of Causation
Tort Law Product Liability Statutory Duty Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Causation Contributory Negligence Product Safety +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howmet Ltd

Claimant

Economy Devices Limited

First Defendant

Electrochemical Supplies Limited

Second Defendant

MJD Supplies Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (product Liability/negligence) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EDL was negligent in the design, manufacture, and supply of the thermolevel device
  2. 2 Whether EDL breached statutory duties under the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994
  3. 3 Whether Howmet's actions broke the chain of causation or constituted contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Howmet failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the fire was caused by a defect in the thermolevel for which EDL was responsible, or that Howmet relied on the thermolevel as a safety device at the time of the fire. Even if EDL was negligent or in breach of statutory duty, Howmet's knowledge of the device's unreliability and its actions in continuing to operate the plant without adequate safeguards meant that causation was not established. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed