Briggs & Forrester Electrical Ltd v Southfield School for Girls & Anor
2005
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER COULSON Q.C.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Construction Law
2005
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
HHJ Peter Coulson QC determined an application by Briggs & Forrester Electrical Limited for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16 arising from asbestos contamination at Southfield School for Girls in Kettering. The school’s governors and the education authority alleged widespread contamination after subcontractor B&W Asbestos Removal Specialists Limited improperly removed asbestos tiles during electrical works overseen by Peter Haddon & Partners. Briggs & Forrester admitted breach of contract due to B&W’s unsatisfactory work but contested causation and quantum, seeking extensive disclosure. Applying Black v Sumitomo and considering the Construction and Engineering protocol, the court held many categories were too broad or unsupported and that only certain categories would be disclosable. On desirability and discretion, the judge emphasized protocol compliance and avoidance of front-loading costs, ordering pre-action disclosure solely of the Part 3 quantum documents and dismissing the rest.
JUDGMENT
20 th July 2005
HIS HONOUR JUDGE COULSON QC:
Introduction .
This is an application by Briggs & Forrester Electrical Limited, whom I shall call the Applicant, for pre-action disclosure pursuant to CPR 31.16 . The original application sought 55 separate categories of documents but this has been reduced by the Applicant's solicitor's letter of 5 July 2005 to 32 categories.
The application arises in this way. In 2003 the buildings at Southfield School for Girls in Kettering were the subject of extensive electrical works. The Applicant was engaged to carry out that work. Because asbestos tiles had to be removed to allow the electrical works to be carried out, a specialist removal contractor, B&W Asbestos Removal Specialists Limited, who I shall call "B&W", were engaged to act as the Applicant's sub-contractors. The work was overseen by an architect, Peter Haddon & Partners.
There is no dispute on the documents that I have seen that this work of tile removal was badly carried out. As a result, the Respondents to this application (who are the prospective Claimants in any litigation, namely the governors of the school and the relevant education authority) allege that there was extensive asbestos contamination of the school buildings, which had to be evacuated in consequence. Thereafter extensive remedial works were carried out.
The Protocol Procedure
On 15 October 2004 the Respondents sent to the Architect, the Applicant and B&W a detailed letter of claim. This was sent in accordance with the Construction and Engineering pre-action protocol. The letter of claim, in a form similar to a pleading, set out a detailed claim for about £5 million damages arising from the asbestos contamination.
The Applicant responded in detail on 4 February 2005. The response included an admission of liability couched in these terms:
"6. Since the work done by B&W was not satisfactory, and caused some asbestos pollution and contamination to the school, it is inevitable that B&F will be held liable for breach of contract to the school. B&F had a contractual obligation to carry out their work in a good and workmanlike manner, and it is clear that they, through B&W, did not do so".
The letter also complained of the difficulties in making an offer to the school and the Council due to their alleged failure "... to quantify the losses claimed by reason of B&F's breaches of contract, as opposed to the losses brought about by the state of the building".
On the same day, the