Archdale (James) & Company Ltd v Comservices Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SOMERVELL,LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE ROMER |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 1953 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1953] EWCA Civ J1208-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 08 December 1953 |
[1953] EWCA Civ J1208-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Somervell
Lord Justice Denning and
Lord Justice Romer
MR. E. RYDER RICHARDSON, Q.C., and MR. PAUL ELTON (instructed by Messrs. Gardiner & Company) appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Appellants (Plaintiffs).
MR. F. W. BENNY, Q.C., and MR. E. G. H. BERESFORD (instructed by Messrs. E. P. Rugg & Company, agents for Messrs. Buller, Jeffries & Kenshole, Birmingham) appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants).
This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Hilbery. The claim arose out of a fire which the Plaintiffs alleged had been started by the negligence of the Defendants' servants. The Defendants were redecorating the Plaintiffs' premises under a contract, some clauses of which we have to construe. The learned Judge, though we have notbeen troubled with that part of the Judgment, found that the fire was caused by the negligence of the Defendants' servants but in respect of one head, and I think only one head, of the claim, namely, the damage to buildings, he held that the Defendents were protected by a clause in the contract. The Plaintiffs appeal and it is submitted to us by Mr. Ryder Richardson on behalf of the Plaintiffs that the learned Judge wrongly construed those clauses. They are printed clauses which are incorporated in a contract which, as I have stated, was for the internal redecoration of the Plaintiffs' factory including offices and the canteen. The first clause to be considered is clause 14(b) which is headed "Injury to property". That clause says, "The Contractor shall be liable for and shall indemnify the Employer against and, where so provided in the Specification, shall insure against any liability, loss, claim or proceedings in respect of any injury or damage whatsoever to any property real or personal in so far as such injury or damage arises out of or in the course of or by reason of the execution of the Works, and provided always that the same is due to any negligence, omission or default of the Contractor, his servants or agents or of any sub-contractor or to any circumstances within the Contractor's control; and subject also as regard loss or damage by fire to the provisions contained in clause 15 of these Conditions". Clause 15(B) is the one with which we are concerned. "The existing structures and the Works and unfixed materials (except plant, tools and equipment) shall be at the sole risk of the Employer as regards loss or damage by fire and the Employer shall maintain a proper policy of insurance against that risk, which policy and the receipt for the last paid premium for its renewal he shall upon request produce for inspection by the Contractor and, if any loss or damage affecting the Works is so occasioned by fire, the Employer shall pay to the Contractor the full value of all work andmaterials then executed and delivered calculated as provided in clause 9 of these Conditions, and this contract as to subsequent work may at the option of either party be determined by notice by registered post from either party to the other, provided that on receipt of such a notice the other party may himself give notice in pursuance of clause 26 of these Conditions that a dispute or difference has arisen on the question whether such determination will be just and equitable. If the Employer shall have failed upon request to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young partnership Ltd
...scheme. 42 Mr Blackburn referred to the well-known rule that clear words are needed to exclude liability for negligence. In James Archdale & Co Ltd v Comservices Ltd [1954] 1 WLR 459 and Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 995 it was held that on......
-
Wisma Development Pte Ltd v Sing - The Disc Shop Pte Ltd
... ... The three authorities cited were: James Archdale & Co Ltd v Comservices Ltd ; Norwich City Council v Harvey & ... ...
-
Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd
...was unable, in my view, to do so convincingly. 5 A similar conclusion was arrived at by the Court of Appeal in England in James Archdale & Co. Ltd. v. Comservices Ltd. [1954] 1 W.L.R. 459 upon the construction of similarly but not identically worded corresponding clauses in a predecessor of......
-
Rathbone Brothers Plc & Michael Paul Egerton-Vernon v Novae Corporate Underwriting Ltd (on its own behalf and on behalf of all the Members of Lloyd's Syndicate 2007 for the 2008 year of account) and Others (Respondents/Appellants)
...caused. His Lordship said this (para. 57): "The case thus falls fairly and squarely within the principles set out in Archdale (James) & Co Ltd v Comservices Ltd [1954] 1 WLR 459, Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 995 and Co-operative Retail Servi......
-
Insurance
...Fraser J. 61 Compare KD Morris & Sons Pty Ltd v GJ Coles & Coy Ltd (1972) 132 CLR 88. 62 See James Archdale & Co Ltd v Comservices Ltd [1954] 1 WLR 459; Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 995 (HL(Sc)); WHTSO v Haden Young (1987) 37 BLR 130; Norwic......