Six Continents Retail Ltd. v Carford Catering Ltd.

Six Continents Retail Ltd. v Carford Catering Ltd.

Carford Catering Ltd breached its contractual and tortious duties by failing to check the wall construction and installing the rotisserie contrary to manufacturer's instructions. The warning letter did not break the chain of causation or discharge their duty, as the risk of fire was within the scope of their obligations. There was no contributory negligence by the claimant.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Six Continents Retail Ltd; First Defendant/first Respondent: Carford Catering Ltd; Second Defendant/second Respondent: R Bristoll Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Negligence, Causation, Contributory Negligence, Installation of Equipment, Duty of Care
Contract Law Tort Law Construction Law Breach of Contract Negligence Causation Contributory Negligence Installation of Equipment +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Six Continents Retail Ltd

Appellant/claimant

Carford Catering Ltd

First Defendant/first Respondent

R Bristoll Ltd

Second Defendant/second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Carford Catering Ltd breached its contractual and tortious duties in the installation of kitchen equipment
  2. 2 Whether the chain of causation was broken by the claimant's failure to act on a warning
  3. 3 Whether there was contributory negligence by the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

Carford Catering Ltd breached its contractual and tortious duties by failing to check the wall construction and installing the rotisserie contrary to manufacturer's instructions. The warning letter did not break the chain of causation or discharge their duty, as the risk of fire was within the scope of their obligations. There was no contributory negligence by the claimant.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment for the claimant on liability