Bowen Construction Ltd -v- Kelcar Developments Ltd [2009] IEHC 467 (16 October 2009)

Bowen Construction Ltd -v- Kelcar Developments Ltd [2009] IEHC 467 (16 October 2009)

Kelcar, as employer under the building contract, cannot claim in arbitration for losses suffered by third parties (owners, operators) because those parties have or are entitled to direct remedies against the contractor. No legal black hole exists, so the exceptions to privity of contract do not apply.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 467
Parties
Plaintiff: Bowen Construction Limited; Respondent: Kelcar Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Special Case Stated by Arbitrator Under Arbitration Act 1954 / High Court Judgment on Questions of Law
Outcome
Claims by Kelcar for third party losses disallowed; questions answered in the negative.
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Third Party Losses, Building Contracts, Collateral Warranties, Set Off and Counterclaim
Contract Law Arbitration Privity of Contract Third Party Losses Building Contracts Collateral Warranties Set Off and Counterclaim

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bowen Construction Limited

Plaintiff

Kelcar Developments Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Case Stated by Arbitrator Under Arbitration Act 1954 / High Court Judgment on Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employer under a building contract can claim for losses suffered by third parties who are not parties to the contract
  2. 2 Whether exceptions to the privity of contract doctrine apply in this case
  3. 3 Whether anticipated consequential losses of associated companies can be claimed by the employer

Ratio Decidendi

Kelcar, as employer under the building contract, cannot claim in arbitration for losses suffered by third parties (owners, operators) because those parties have or are entitled to direct remedies against the contractor. No legal black hole exists, so the exceptions to privity of contract do not apply.

Court Disposition

Claims by Kelcar for third party losses disallowed; questions answered in the negative.

Orders

  • Kelcar cannot claim in its own right the costs of remedial works for buildings it does not own.
  • Kelcar cannot claim anticipated consequential losses of BGR in these proceedings.