Colour Quest Ltd & Ors v Total Downstream UK Plc & Ors (Rev 1)
Total was vicariously liable for the negligence of on-site staff (not HOSL), as Total exercised actual control and management over operations, employment, and safety systems at Buncefield. Economic loss claims by beneficial owners (e.g. Shell) without immediate right to possession are not recoverable. Consent does not bar claims in Rylands v Fletcher or nuisance where the escape is caused by negligence. Indemnities in the JVA and Operating Regulations do not cover a party's own negligence. Both public and private nuisance can arise from a single catastrophic escape.
- Parties
- Claimants: Colour Quest Limited and Others; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Total Downstream UK PLC; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Total UK Limited; Defendant/part 20 Defendant: Hertfordshire Oil Storage Limited (HOSL); Part 20 Third Party: Chevron Limited; Part 20 Defendant: TAV Engineering Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Motherwell; Claimants: Douglas Jessop & Others; Claimants: West London Pipeline and Storage Ltd and United Kingdom Oil Pipelines Ltd; Claimant: BP Oil UK Limited; Claimant: Shell UK Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 20 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Court Trial of Preliminary Issues (multi Party Tort Claims) / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues
- Outcome
- Judgment for claimants on vicarious liability and nuisance; economic loss claims by beneficial owners (e.g. Shell) dismissed; indemnity claims by Total dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Nuisance (private and Public), Rylands V Fletcher, Economic Loss, Indemnities, Joint Venture Liability, Consent as Defence, COMAH Regulations
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Colour Quest Limited and Others
Claimants
Total Downstream UK PLC
Defendant/part 20 Claimant
Total UK Limited
Defendant/part 20 Claimant
Hertfordshire Oil Storage Limited (HOSL)
Defendant/part 20 Defendant
Chevron Limited
Part 20 Third Party
TAV Engineering Limited
Part 20 Defendant
Motherwell
Part 20 Defendant
Douglas Jessop & Others
Claimants
West London Pipeline and Storage Ltd and United Kingdom Oil Pipelines Ltd
Claimants
BP Oil UK Limited
Claimant
Shell UK Limited
Claimant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Trial of Preliminary Issues (multi Party Tort Claims) / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues
Legal Issues
- 1 Who is vicariously liable for the negligence causing the Buncefield explosion: Total or HOSL?
- 2 Is economic loss recoverable by claimants with beneficial but not possessory interests?
- 3 Does consent bar claims in Rylands v Fletcher and nuisance for 'inside the fence' claimants?
Ratio Decidendi
Total was vicariously liable for the negligence of on-site staff (not HOSL), as Total exercised actual control and management over operations, employment, and safety systems at Buncefield. Economic loss claims by beneficial owners (e.g. Shell) without immediate right to possession are not recoverable. Consent does not bar claims in Rylands v Fletcher or nuisance where the escape is caused by negligence. Indemnities in the JVA and Operating Regulations do not cover a party's own negligence. Both public and private nuisance can arise from a single catastrophic escape.
Court Disposition
Judgment for claimants on vicarious liability and nuisance; economic loss claims by beneficial owners (e.g. Shell) dismissed; indemnity claims by Total dismissed.
Orders
- Total is vicariously liable for the negligence causing the Buncefield explosion.
- Claims in Rylands v Fletcher and nuisance succeed against Total (including for 'inside the fence' claimants).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment