Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd v Essex Services Group Plc & Ors

Judgment

Lord Justice Jackson :

This judgment is in seven parts, namely:

Part 1. Introduction paragraphs 2 to 9 Part 2. The facts paragraphs 10 to 29 Part 3. The present proceedings paragraphs 30 to 41 Part 4. The appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to the Core 2 flood paragraphs 42 to 47 Part 5. Challenges to the judge’s findings of fact paragraphs 48 to 62 Part 6. The operation of the indemnity clause paragraphs 63 to 101 Part 7. Conclusion paragraphs 102 to 103

Part 1. Introduction

This is an appeal by a labour only sub-sub-sub-contractor against a decision of Mr Justice Coulson that it is liable to indemnify the respondent, who was the party above it in the contractual chain, for workmanship defects which caused flooding in a block of flats. The principal issue in this appeal is whether the respondent’s failure to detect those defects precludes recovery under an indemnity clause, alternatively prevents recovery of the same sum as damages for breach of contract. There are also challenges to the judge’s findings of fact.

The employer and building owner, which is claimant in the litigation, is Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd (“GMVL”). The main contractor, which is not a party to the action, is Laing O’Rourke Plc (“LOR”). Hoare Lea (“HL”) is a firm of engineers whom LOR engaged. HL is second defendant and fifth party in the action.

Essex Services PLC (“Essex”) is a specialist sub-contractor and is the first defendant in this action. HS Environmental Services Ltd (“HSE”) is a specialist sub-sub-contractor. HSE is third party in the litigation and respondent in the appeal.

DG Robson Mechanical Services Ltd (“Robson”) is the labour only sub-sub-sub-contractor whose workmanship errors the judge held to have caused the flood. Robson is sixth party in the action and appellant in the present appeal.

I shall use the following abbreviations:

“BMCWS” means boosted mains cold water system.

“IV” mean isolation valve.

“NRV” means non-return valve.

“TCC” means Technology and Construction Court.

When asking the judge to grant permission to appeal, Robson produced its draft grounds of appeal and skeleton argument. In his judgment refusing permission the judge amplified the reasons for his original decision. I have wondered whether it is legitimate to take into account the second judgment. My conclusion is that it is appropriate to take that judgment into account. In English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605 ; [2002] 1 WLR 2409 at \