Howmet Ltd v Economy Devices Ltd & Ors
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR. JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Commercial Law
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involved a devastating fire at Howmet's factory, allegedly caused by a failure in a probe designed by EDL, which was supposed to detect low liquid levels and prevent heater overheating. Despite Howmet's claims of faulty design and misleading marketing, the court found insufficient evidence to fully attribute the fire to EDL's negligence. Instead, it was determined that Howmet shouldered significant blame for continuing to operate the system despite known faults, attributing 75% of the liability to Howmet. Important legal principles include the duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers and the concept of intervening cause in tort law.
Judgment
Mr. Justice Edwards-Stuart:
Introduction
On 12 February 2007 there was a disastrous fire at the Claimant’s factory in Exeter. The Claimant (“Howmet”) says that it was caused by the failure of a probe that was supposed to detect a loss of liquid in a hot water tank. As a result of the combination of some rather unusual events the heater to the tank was switched on at a time when the tank was virtually empty. The probe, being out of the water, should have isolated the heating units in the tank. It failed to do so and so the heaters overheated and set fire to the tank, and the fire quickly spread to the factory. It caused losses in excess of £20 million.
The First Defendant, Economy Devices Ltd (“EDL”), was the manufacturer of the probe. The Second Defendant, Electrochemical Supplies Ltd (“ECS”), was engaged to design, supply and install a new grain etch line (“GEL”), which included the tank that caught fire. The Third Defendant, MJD Technologies Ltd (“MJD”), purchased the probe from EDL and installed it as part of a subcontract with ECS for the electrical system for the new GEL. MJD is now dormant and has neither assets nor insurance. It has not served a Defence and has effectively played no part in the litigation. Howmet has now settled its claim against ECS and so the trial was confined to the issues between Howmet and EDL.
Howmet claims that the probe, known as a Therm O Level (“thermolevel”), was negligently designed with the result that it was unreliable in service and, in any event, was not a failsafe device. It complains also about the brochure produced by EDL which, it says, contained misleading information as to the qualities of the product.
EDL denies liability. It contends that the losses sustained by Howmet were not within the scope of any duty owed by EDL, that the fire was caused by acts of Howmet which broke the chain of causation and that there was nothing wrong with what it says was a simple and relatively low grade product. In the alternative, it relies on the defence of contributory negligence.
In addition, EDL puts Howmet to proof of the cause of the fire, which it says is far from self-evident.
In a more general way EDL asserts that this is a David and Goliath situation. Howmet is part of the very substantial Alcoa group, and itself had a turnover in excess of $100 million in 2005. EDL, by contrast, is said to have been a three person company - one director, his wife (as company secretary) and a technician - which had a