199 Knightsbridge Development Ltd v WSP UK Ltd
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR. JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case revolves around serious flooding at 199 Knightsbridge apartments due to failures in the cold water pipework. Key legal issues included the foreseeability and preventability of these failures by WSP UK Ltd, who designed the system. Despite acknowledgment that the failures could have been foreseen, the court concluded that WSP's failure to appreciate the risk did not cause the damages, as the preventive measures suggested would not have averted the events. Various steps that WSP could have taken were detailed, but the court ultimately dismissed the claim due to failure to prove causation.
Judgment
Contents
Introduction 1 The background 10 The system at 199 Knightsbridge 19 The design process 28 The “black building” test on 30 August 2005 41 The events of 15 September 2005 44 The witnesses who were not involved in the events of 15 September 2005 66 Mr. Groves 66 Mr. Keith Shenstone 74 Mr. Scott 82 The experts 84 Dr. Andrew Prickett 85 Mr. David Gosling 87 Mr. Terry Dix 89 Other evidence as to the availability of anti-surge valves for residential systems prior to 2005 92 The CAVSA anti-surge valve 92 The Vent-O-Mat RBX surge arrestor (“Cla Val”) 96 Other material 98 WSP’s duty and the applicable law 101 The scope of WSP’s duty 112 The relevant principles 115 The configuration of the cold water pipework and its implications 122 The mechanism of the failure 141 The Claimant’s general case on design 150 The Claimant’s case on the trigger events 165 The substitution of the Grundfos pump set for the Allan Aqua set 167 The request for an instruction to install double check valves 168 The commissioning stage 170 Review of the O&M manuals 189 The discussions about the emergency generator 191 The “black building” test 193 Was there a conversation between Mr. Groves and WSP 194 Causation 202 The installation of surge arresters 202 The establishment of a slow refill procedure following an unplanned shutdown 218 Conclusions 225 RULING Ruling The Claimant’s case in relation to potentiometers X
Mr. Justice Edwards-Stuart:
Introduction
199 Knightsbridge is a large and very prestigious apartment block in London that was built a few years ago. It is now known as “The Knightsbridge”. At the relevant time the freehold owner of the building was the Claimant.
On 15 September 2005, when the building had been partly handed over, there was serious flooding resulting from two failures of the cold water pipework. In the first case, a 25 mm pipe joint failed, in the other a 15 mm copper pipe burst under pressure. Extensive damage was caused by the subsequent escape of water.
The issue in this case is whether WSP UK Ltd (“WSP”), the Mechanical and Electrical (“M&E”) engineers who designed the cold water system, are liable for the flooding. WSP say that no reasonable engineer at the time would have foreseen or guarded against the events that occurred.
The Claimant says that everything that occurred could have been foreseen. If WSP had thought through their design, says the Claimant, they would have identified the risk of a potentially catastrophic failure followi