Gambrill v NG Bailey Facilities Services Ltd [2026] EWHC 667 (KB) (20 March 2026)

Gambrill v NG Bailey Facilities Services Ltd [2026] EWHC 667 (KB) (20 March 2026)

B&B owed no duty of care to the claimant as employer or de facto employer, so no contribution claim lies under the 1978 Act; the indemnity clause does not cover NGB's own negligence absent clear wording; the proposed amendment to plead a new breach of contract claim is refused due to lateness, lack of good reason,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 667 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: James Alan Gambrill; Defendant: NG Bailey Facilities Services Ltd; Third Party: Beauchamp & Bird Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2026
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Amendment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted to B&B on both the contribution and indemnity claims; permission to amend refused; NGB's applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Contractual Indemnity, Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Amendment of Pleadings, Causation, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Employer's Liability Negligence Contractual Indemnity Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 Summary Judgment +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Alan Gambrill

Claimant

NG Bailey Facilities Services Ltd

Defendant

Beauchamp & Bird Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether B&B owed a duty of care to the claimant as employer or de facto employer for purposes of contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
  2. 2 Whether NGB is entitled to a contractual indemnity from B&B under clause 3.8 of the Trade Framework Agreement for losses arising from its own negligence
  3. 3 Whether NGB should be permitted to amend its pleadings to introduce a new breach of contract claim against B&B shortly before trial

Ratio Decidendi

B&B owed no duty of care to the claimant as employer or de facto employer, so no contribution claim lies under the 1978 Act; the indemnity clause does not cover NGB's own negligence absent clear wording; the proposed amendment to plead a new breach of contract claim is refused due to lateness, lack of good reason, and prejudice to B&B.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted to B&B on both the contribution and indemnity claims; permission to amend refused; NGB's applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for B&B on the 1978 Act contribution claim
  • Summary judgment for B&B on the contractual indemnity claim