Bridge UK.Com Ltd v Abbey Pynford Plc

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date04 April 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] EWHC 728 (TCC)
Docket NumberCase No:
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
Date04 April 2007

[2007] EWHC 728 (TCC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT

Before

the Honourable Mr Justice Ramsey

Case No:

Between
Bridge UK.Com Limited (Trading as Bridge Communications)
Claimant
and
Abbey Pynford Plc
Defendant

Andrew Spencer (instructed by Leonard Gray) for the Claimant

Luke Wygas (instructed by Williams, Holden Cooklin & Gibbons) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 19 & 20 February 2007

Insert Judge title and name here:

1

The Claimant carries out a commercial printing and mailing business and in 2002 decided to move its business in Essex from Romford to a larger site at Heybridge in Maldon and to install a Heidelberg 10 colour 102 Speedmaster printing press (“the Press”) there before taking occupation.

2

The Press had been purchased by the Claimant from Close Asset Finance Limited (“CAF”) who had previously financed the purchase of the Press by a company which had become insolvent. It was sold to the Claimant from a liquidation sale in Basildon in July 2002. The Claimant agreed to make payments of £8,750 for 3 months followed by 21 monthly payments of £15,700 to CAF under a short term hire agreement dated 7 August 2002.

3

The Press, when in operation, weighs some 62 tonnes and needs an adequate foundation. The Claimant therefore contacted the Defendant, a specialist ground engineering company which, amongst other things, carries out piling and the construction of plant bases.

4

After a meeting in early August 2002 between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant arranged for ground investigation work to be carried out by Geodrive Limited on 8 August 2002. They reported to the Defendant on the results of that investigation on 9 August 2002.

5

The Defendant then engaged Knapp Hicks and Partners Limited (“KHP”), a firm of consulting engineers, to carry out the design of the base for the Press.

6

On 13 August 2002 the Defendant submitted an offer to the Claimant for the installation of a piled foundation for the Press at the new premises in Maldon

7

In that Offer they stated:

(1) “We have allowed to construct the new foundation flush with the existing floor slab. We will carry out a level survey of the existing floor at an early stage in the works. In the event that the floor slab is found to be significantly out of level, such that the new foundation cannot be constructed flush with the existing floor slab and still allow the press to be installed, we will discuss and agree the necessary variation to the scheme with your selves. Additional costs may result.”

(2) “In view of the fact that the new foundations [are being] constructed in an empty factory, we have not allowed to construct a dust-proof screen to enclose the working area as would be the case in the event that existing presses were in operation adjacent to our works.”

(3) “We have estimated completing the work in 8 days. We would require a contract period of 10 days.”

8

On 15 August 2002 Mr John Ruck, on behalf of the Claimant, accepted the Defendant's offer. This therefore formed the agreement between the parties (“the Contract”).

9

The Defendant started work on site on 19 August 2002 when Kriscut Concrete Drilling and Sawing Co Ltd commenced sawing out the boundaries of the existing floor slab so that the plant base could be constructed. The existing slab was then broken out and cleared away between about 20 and 23 August 2002.

10

The Defendant's sub-contractor commenced the piling on about 27 August 2002 and completed the work on about 30 August 2002.

11

Construction of the slab to the design set out by KHP commenced on about 2 September 2002 and on 4 September 2002 Mr Craig Macklin, a Construction Engineer for the Defendant, wrote to the Claimant to say:

“Following the completion of our level survey of the existing floor at the above address we wish to inform you that the slab is outside level tolerances for the new printing machine. The floor area where we are installing the print base is +/-60mm, which is well outside 20mm tolerance your machine requires.

Unfortunately in order for us to achieve the required tolerances we will have to shutter the edges around your base using stainless steel, which will be installed to level, and therefore well within required tolerances. However this will then leave our slab protruding around 60mm above ground at one end. Any irregularity can be made good using proprietary epoxy floor repair mortar.

We trust the above is acceptable and we are progressing works as quickly as possible and aim to pour concrete on Friday 5th Sept.”

12

There was then a discussion between Mr John Ruck and the Defendant's site manager, Mr Chris Roberts, during which the Defendant's proposal was discussed. Mr Macklin was, it seems, unwilling to visit the site but participated in a discussion over the telephone. It is not clear what was discussed but the upshot was that the Defendant proceeded to cast the slab at some stage between 5 and 7 September 2002.

13

On Friday 13 September 2002 Mr Neil Lattimore of TriTech Engineering (“TriTech”), a company specialising in Heidelberg Presses, attended site to commence the installation of the Press. He noted two aspects of the slab which he considered unacceptable. First the Defendant had laid a plinth which was raised from the floor at one end and was very much higher that the original surrounding floor and this made the Press unworkable at the feeder end. Secondly level readings confirmed that the tolerances on the slab had not been met.

14

On 14 September 2002 the Defendant met Mr Lattimore on site to discuss measures to overcome the problem. On Monday 16 September 2002 the Defendant carried out some remedial work. A meeting then took place on 17 September 2002 and the Defendant agreed to return to site on 18 September. As recorded in the fax from Mr David Kellet, the Defendant's area manager, to Mr John Ruck on the same day, the Defendant was

“to commence the works to trim down the slab to a level flush, or slightly, below the existing floor giving a bearing platform for the machine within the agreed tolerances, approx + or—10/20mm. The programme will be for 'dirty' works being completed by the end of Friday 20 September 02 with the intention being to place the slab surface the following day.”

15

Mr Peter Ruck of the Claimant responded on 18 September 2002 to say:

“I confirm we will pay an agreed final total payment of £15,000 (+VAT). This provided the work is carries out to our satisfaction with agreed tolerances + or—10/20 mm. The remedial “dirty work” is completed by Friday afternoon allowing the new final finished surface to be applied on Saturday. This allows the Print engineers to commence building the press on Monday morning. Otherwise we will revert back to £12,500 + VAT.

I must stress again the importance of this agreed schedule[as] we are moving from our existing factory in Romford to the Maldon site. We will have a large moving operation with cranes and heavy vehicles in place all weekend. It is our intention to be in production on Monday morning 23rd September 2002.”

16

Mr Macklin replied on 19 September 2002 to say:

“…we confirm that as instructed and agreed that we will trim the print base to current floor level and tolerances.

We confirm as a result of your instruction that the new finishes will not protrude further than 10mm over existing ground levels and that we are now not required to achieve any level tolerances. Your print machine installation engineers will overcome and discrepancies in levels.

We envisage all works will be completed by Saturday morning. Therefore we will require a representative from your company and one of your installation engineers to pass and sign acceptance of our works”

17

Work started on these remedial works but on 20 and 21 September 2002 Mr Peter Ruck wrote to Mr Kellet to complain about the level of dust circulating in the factory.

18

On 23 and 24 September 2002 Mr Peter Ruck wrote again to Mr Kellet to say that he was unhappy with the subsequent remedial work because the floor was moving under the weight of the Press. He said that Mr Macklin had agreed with TriTech that the “floor “is moving” and remedial work has been unsuccessful. He informs me that he wants to dig up the floor again”. He referred to Mr Macklin returning to site and making tests and said:

“he now informs me that he agrees with the Tri-tech print engineer that the floor will not take the press weight and needs to be taken up again.

The two areas he checked clearly show that the Epoxy resin has not adhered to the concrete floor. I have asked Craig to provide me with a method statement for the further remedial work.

I must reiterate that the continued delays and damage will and has involved consequential costs and subsequent claims. In an effort to solve the problem I must inform you, I am now seeking a second opinion from a representative of Heidelberg, the machine manufacturers.”

19

Mr Macklin responded on 24 September 2002 to say:

“With regards subsequent events, we have not acknowledged that the base is 'moving' but have noted comments from the installer that he believed there to be a movement of 5mm, although there is no evidence of this on the floor, either in the form of major indentations or settlement of the slab. We have acknowledged the installers comments that he has recorded a movement of 1/500mm upon placing the first section of equipment but we are not in a position to comment on the acceptability of this.”

20

He added:

“We would suggest that the only way to demonstrate the compressive performance of the slab is for installer to position all sections of the machinery allowing for the normal adjustments that are generally carried out at this stage.”

21

On 25 September 2002 a meeting was held attended by Mr Philip Jones, the Commercial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
3 firm's commentaries
  • Recovering Damages For Diversion Of Employees - Australia Takes Note Of English Decisions
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 11 November 2009
    ...was used in R+V Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA [2006] EWHC 42, Bridge UK.COM Limited v Abbey Pynford plc [2007] EWHC 728 and Verizon UK Ltd (formerly MCI WorldCom Ltd) v Swiftnet Ltd [2008] EWHC Despite what is said in R+V and Bridge UK.COM, BHP Coal still app......
  • Energy Efficiency Regulations And Recovery Of Lost Staff Time
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 25 January 2008
    ...generated, at least to the extent of the cost of employing them for a non-productive period. In Bridge UK.com Ltd v Abbey Pynford plc (2007) CILL 2465, the breach consisted in Abbey Pynford's delay in constructing adequate foundations for Bridge's printing press. This case is important beyo......
  • Damages For Defective Works - Management Time & Loss Of Profit
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 16 April 2007
    ...the principles concerning the recovery and assessment of these two types of damages. In Bridge UK.Com Limited v Abbey Pynford plc [2007] EWHC 728 (TCC), the claimant sought to recover damages for the defective installation of a foundation for its printing Management time A claimant will usu......
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume I - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...Ltd [2015] VSC 127 II.13.96 Bridges and Towers Pty Ltd v Surucic [2009] NSWSC 1180 III.22.29 Bridge UK.Com Ltd v Abbey Pynford plc [2007] EWHC 728 (TCC) II.13.15, II.13.28, II.14.128 Bridge v Campbell Discount Co Ltd [1962] AC 600 I.2.159 Bridgeway Construction Ltd v Tolent Construction (un......
  • Damages
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume II - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...Ltd v Hillmead Joinery (Swindon) Ltd [2015] EWhC B7 (TCC) at [151]–[152], per hhJ Grant. 33 Bridge UK.Com Ltd v Abbey Pynford plc [2007] EWhC 728 (TCC) at [122]–[123], per ramsey J; Haysman v Mrs Rogers Films Ltd [2008] EWhC 2494 (QB) at [35]–[46], per Mr D Sweeting QC. 34 (2007) 110 Con Lr......
  • Litigation
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume III - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...return: see Van Oord UK Ltd v Allseas UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 3074 (TCC) at [80], per Coulson J. 935 Bridge UK.Com Ltd v Abbey Pynford plc [2007] EWHC 728 (TCC) at [47], per Ramsey J. See also McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd (No 2) [2006] BLR 489, which concerned slightly unusual facts in whic......
  • Defects
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume II - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...Alliance Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 62 at [8]–[10], per McDougall J. 361 See, eg, Bridge UK.Com Ltd v Abbey Pynford plc [2007] EWhC 728 (TCC); Roluke Pty Ltd v Lamaro Consultants Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 349 at [96]–[98], per Nicholas J (appeal allowed in part, on other grounds [2008] N......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT