Mouchel Ltd. v Van Oord (UK) Ltd.

Mouchel Ltd. v Van Oord (UK) Ltd.

Van Oord was not liable for the suitability of GMS as backfill material due to an express exclusion of design responsibility in the sub-contract. Van Oord was liable for failing to lay the required depth of scour protection rock at the intake structures, which contributed to the damage. Both Mouchel (for design failure to specify a filter layer) and Van Oord (for inadequate rock placement) were liable for the same damage, and Van Oord must contribute 35% of Mouchel's liability for that head of loss.

Parties
Claimant: Mouchel Limited; Defendant: Van Oord (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Contribution Claim (construction Contract) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for contribution allowed in part
Legal Topics
Contribution Under Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978, Suitability of Materials, Workmanship Obligations, Design Responsibility, Quantum of Damages
Construction Law Contract Law Contribution Under Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 Suitability of Materials Workmanship Obligations Design Responsibility Quantum of Damages

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mouchel Limited

Claimant

Van Oord (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contribution Claim (construction Contract) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Van Oord was liable to Kier for the suitability of Grimsby Middle Sand (GMS) as backfill material
  2. 2 Whether Van Oord was liable to Kier for failing properly to place scour protection around the intake structures
  3. 3 Whether Mouchel was liable to Kier in respect of the same damage as Van Oord

Ratio Decidendi

Van Oord was not liable for the suitability of GMS as backfill material due to an express exclusion of design responsibility in the sub-contract. Van Oord was liable for failing to lay the required depth of scour protection rock at the intake structures, which contributed to the damage. Both Mouchel (for design failure to specify a filter layer) and Van Oord (for inadequate rock placement) were liable for the same damage, and Van Oord must contribute 35% of Mouchel's liability for that head of loss.

Court Disposition

Claim for contribution allowed in part

Orders

  • Van Oord to pay Mouchel £8,546 as contribution to liability for scour protection defects, plus interest to be calculated, and a contribution to costs to be determined or agreed.