Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd v Supershield Ltd [2009] EWHC 927 (TCC) (01 May 2009)

Supershield was contractually obliged to install and secure the ball valve float arm, failed to do so with reasonable care, causing the flood. Siemens' settlement with Haden Young was reasonable and recoverable from Supershield under contract and indemnity.

Citation: [2009] EWHC 927 (TCC)
Parties: Part 20 Claimant: Siemens Building Technologies FE Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Supershield Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 01 May 2009
Procedural Posture: Part 20 Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome: Claim allowed
Legal Topics: Subcontractor Liability, Indemnity, Reasonable Settlement, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978

Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Subcontractor Liability Indemnity Reasonable Settlement Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8

Parties

Siemens Building Technologies FE Limited

Part 20 Claimant

Supershield Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 20 Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

1 Was Supershield obliged under the subcontract to install and secure the ball valve float arm?
2 Did Supershield perform that obligation?
3 Was the nut and bolt connection insufficiently tightened at installation?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

Supershield is liable to Siemens for the settlement sums paid to Haden Young and parties up the contractual chain.
Supershield must indemnify Siemens for loss, damage, expense, or liability resulting from its breach.