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)

By the parties' conduct, JMH was contractually required to comply with instructions from Ford's engineer, Mr Furley, regarding the form and method of temporary roof support, thereby displacing JMH's design responsibility for those works. However, JMH retained a duty to warn Plant of the inadequacy of the propping, which it failed to discharge adequately. Plant and its engineer, Adams, were also at fault for failing to act on the known inadequacy, and Plant's share of responsibility was predominant. Damages were apportioned 80% to Plant and 20% to JMH.

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 as agreed.
Legal Topics
Temporary Works Responsibility, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Variation of Contract, Duty to Warn, Allocation of Design Responsibility
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Temporary Works Responsibility Negligence Contributory Negligence Variation of Contract Duty to Warn +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 bore responsibility for the design of temporary works (roof propping) under the sub-contract between Plant and JMH?
  2. 2 Was JMH in breach of a duty of care to warn Plant of inadequate propping?
  3. 3 Did Plant's conduct amount to contributory negligence and, if so, to what extent should damages be reduced?

Ratio Decidendi

By the parties' conduct, JMH was contractually required to comply with instructions from Ford's engineer, Mr Furley, regarding the form and method of temporary roof support, thereby displacing JMH's design responsibility for those works. However, JMH retained a duty to warn Plant of the inadequacy of the propping, which it failed to discharge adequately. Plant and its engineer, Adams, were also at fault for failing to act on the known inadequacy, and Plant's share of responsibility was predominant. Damages were apportioned 80% to Plant and 20% to JMH.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • JMH to pay 20% of the agreed damages to Plant Construction PLC, with interest as agreed between the parties.
  • JMH to pay 70% of Plant's costs of the action, excluding those incurred against Adams; costs against both Defendants to be apportioned.