Hochtief (UK) Construction Ltd & Anor v Atkins Ltd [2019] EWHC 2109 (TCC) (31 July 2019)

Hochtief (UK) Construction Ltd & Anor v Atkins Ltd [2019] EWHC 2109 (TCC) (31 July 2019)

Atkins was responsible for the detailed design of the Bridge, including the EPC blocks and HDPE membrane details and associated sub-soil drainage. The evidence established that undue differential settlement occurred at the approaches to the Bridge, particularly at the ends of the membrane, due to collapse compression of the chalk fill following water ingress. The cause was Atkins' failure to design or specify an adequate drainage system for sub-surface water above or adjacent to the membranes. The JV's workmanship was not the primary cause. Atkins was in breach of contract and negligent. The remedial works carried out were reasonable and necessary as a result of Atkins' design inadequacies.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2109 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Hochtief (UK) Construction Limited; Claimant: VolkerFitzpatrick Limited; Defendant: Atkins Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
TCC (technology and Construction Court) Claim for Breach of Contract And/or Negligence / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants (Hochtief (UK) Construction Limited and VolkerFitzpatrick Limited) against the defendant (Atkins Limited) for breach of contract and negligence.
Legal Topics
Design Liability, Breach of Contract, Concurrent Duty of Care, Remedial Works, Causation, Quantum of Damages
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Design Liability Breach of Contract Concurrent Duty of Care Remedial Works +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hochtief (UK) Construction Limited

Claimant

VolkerFitzpatrick Limited

Claimant

Atkins Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

TCC (technology and Construction Court) Claim for Breach of Contract And/or Negligence / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Atkins was responsible for the final design of the abutments and wingwalls, including EPC blocks and HDPE membrane details, and any required sub-soil drainage
  2. 2 Whether there was undue differential settlement on the Bridge approaches
  3. 3 What caused the differential settlement on the Bridge approaches: design or workmanship

Ratio Decidendi

Atkins was responsible for the detailed design of the Bridge, including the EPC blocks and HDPE membrane details and associated sub-soil drainage. The evidence established that undue differential settlement occurred at the approaches to the Bridge, particularly at the ends of the membrane, due to collapse compression of the chalk fill following water ingress. The cause was Atkins' failure to design or specify an adequate drainage system for sub-surface water above or adjacent to the membranes. The JV's workmanship was not the primary cause. Atkins was in breach of contract and negligent. The remedial works carried out were reasonable and necessary as a result of Atkins' design inadequacies.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants (Hochtief (UK) Construction Limited and VolkerFitzpatrick Limited) against the defendant (Atkins Limited) for breach of contract and negligence.

Orders

  • Atkins Limited to pay damages to the claimants in the agreed sums for remedial works to the Bridge and Underpass.
  • Costs to be determined (not specified in the provided text).