Plant Construction Plc v. Clive Adams Associates, JMH Construction Services Limited [1998] EWHC QB 335 (9th March, 1998)

Plant Construction Plc v. Clive Adams Associates, JMH Construction Services Limited [1998] EWHC QB 335 (9th March, 1998)

JMH's contractual responsibility for the design of temporary works was displaced by a course of conduct whereby Plant and JMH accepted that Ford's engineer, Mr Furley, had authority to give binding instructions as to the form and method of temporary works. However, JMH retained a duty of care to warn Plant of the inadequacy of the propping, which it failed to discharge adequately. Plant was predominantly responsible for the loss due to its acquiescence in Mr Furley's instructions and failure to act on warnings, justifying an 80% reduction for contributory negligence.

Citation
[1998] EWHC QB 335
Parties
Plaintiff: Plant Construction PLC; First Defendant: Clive Adams Associates; Second Defendant: JMH Construction Services Ltd; Third Party (struck Out): Ford Motor Company Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff for 20% of agreed damages, with interest.
Legal Topics
Temporary Works Responsibility, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Design Liability, Contractual Variation, Duty to Warn
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Temporary Works Responsibility Negligence Contributory Negligence Design Liability Contractual Variation +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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plant Construction PLC

Plaintiff

Clive Adams Associates

First Defendant

JMH Construction Services Ltd

Second Defendant

Ford Motor Company Ltd

Third Party (struck Out)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who bears responsibility for the design of temporary works in the absence of express contractual provision?
  2. 2 Was JMH's responsibility for design of temporary works displaced by instructions from Ford's engineer?
  3. 3 Did JMH discharge its duty of care to warn Plant of inadequate propping?

Ratio Decidendi

JMH's contractual responsibility for the design of temporary works was displaced by a course of conduct whereby Plant and JMH accepted that Ford's engineer, Mr Furley, had authority to give binding instructions as to the form and method of temporary works. However, JMH retained a duty of care to warn Plant of the inadequacy of the propping, which it failed to discharge adequately. Plant was predominantly responsible for the loss due to its acquiescence in Mr Furley's instructions and failure to act on warnings, justifying an 80% reduction for contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff for 20% of agreed damages, with interest.

Orders

  • JMH to pay Plant 20% of the agreed damages (£1,313,031 + £615,000), subject to agreed interest.
  • JMH to pay 70% of Plant's costs of the action, excluding costs incurred against Adams; costs against both Defendants to be apportioned.