Co-operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd ((in Liquidation)) Stuarts Industrial Flooring Ltd ((in Administration)) (Third Party) Jubb & Partners (A Firm)(Fourth Party) Geofirma Soils Engineering Ltd (Fifth Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Stuart-Smith,Mr Justice Stuart-Smith |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 530 (TCC) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HT-13-204 and HT-13-69 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Date | 28 February 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 530 (TCC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Stuart-Smith
Case No: HT-13-204 and HT-13-69
and
and
and
Michael Soole Q.C. and Richard Liddell (instructed by Clyde and Co LLP) for BIRSE
Katie Powell (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for STUARTS
Benjamin Pilling (instructed by Beale and Co) for JUBB
Doré Green (instructed by Kennedys Law LLP) for GEOFIRMA
Hearing dates: 18 & 19 February 2014
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Introduction
The Defendant ["Birse"] was the design and build main contractor for the construction of a large warehouse near Rugby, which has generated two actions now running concurrently. Birse's subcontractors included the Third and Fourth Parties in action HT-13-204 ["Stuarts" – specialist industrial flooring subcontractor; and "Jubb" – engineering consultancy services] and the Defendant in action HT-13-69 ["Geofirma" – specialist geotechnical design, engineering and contractor services]. The litigation arises because defects are said to have developed in the external hardstanding, the drainage system and the floor slab as a consequence of inadequate design or construction. The Co-Operative Group Ltd ["Co-op"] is the long leaseholder of the premises and is the Claimant in action HT-13-204. Birse is the Defendant in that action and the Claimant in action HT-13-69. The structure of the two actions and the reasons why it has come about that there are two actions are not material for present purposes.
Co-op commenced proceedings on 14 September 2010, about 12 years after practical completion. Limitation is one of the many issues between the parties.
In addition to the main contract and various sub-contracts (of which more later), collateral warranties were given to the original leaseholder ["CRS"] by Birse, Stuarts and Jubb. The Stuarts and Jubb warranties provided that they could be assigned twice without the consent of the warrantor but that thereafter they could only be assigned with consent, which was not to be unreasonably refused. As appears in more detail later, there have been three agreements to assign the warranties and consent was not obtained for the third assignment, which was intended to assign them to Co-op.
On application being made by Jubb and Geofirma, the Court directed that preliminary issues should be tried and gave Stuarts and Co-op permission to make submissions at the trial of those issues. In the event, Stuarts made submissions while Co-op maintained a watching brief. The preliminary issues that were directed to be tried were:
Issue 1:
a) Whether Birse's causes of action in the tort of negligence against Jubb are time barred by virtue of section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980;
b) Whether or not the action brought by Birse against Geofirma in the tort of negligence is time barred by virtue of section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980.
Issue 2:
a) Whether the attempt to assign the benefit of Jubb's warranty to Co-op, without seeking or obtaining Jubb's consent, gave rise to a trust of the benefit of that warranty in favour of Co-op. 1
For the reasons set out below, I decide the preliminary issues as follows:
a. Issue 1: Birse's causes of action in tort against Jubb and Geofirma are time barred by virtue of section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980;
b. Issue 2: the attempt to assign the benefit of Jubb's warranty to Co-op, without seeking or obtaining Jubb's consent, did not give rise to a trust of the benefit of that warranty in favour of Co-op.
This judgment follows the following course:
The Factual Background
| Paragraphs | |
| Introduction | 1–6 |
| The Factual Background | 7 |
| Birse's Pleaded Case The case against Jubb The case against Stuarts The case against Geofirma | 8–15 9 11 13 |
| Issue 1: Limitation in Tort The principles to be applied Birse's submissions "The damaged asset rule" "The package of rights rule" Ascertainment at trial Notification Lack of knowledge Incremental steps | 16–60 16 41 44 48 56 57 58 59 |
| Issue 2: The Assignment to Co-op The principles to be applied Application of these principles to the facts of this case | 61–92 65 89 |
No provision was made for facts to be agreed in advance of the hearing, but the parties have now agreed the assumed facts set out in Annexe A for the purposes of this hearing.
Birse's Pleaded Case
Birse pleads its case in tort against Stuarts, Jubb and Geofirma in the same form, which is conventional in rehearsing the nature of Co-op's claim against Birse and Birse's denial of liability to Co-op and then making the claim over in the event that its denial of liability fails.
The Case against Jubb
The material parts extracted from the Re-amended Particulars of Birse's Additional Claim Against Jubb are set out in Annexe B.
I highlight the following features of the pleaded case against Jubb:
a. It is clear from Clause 2 of the Appointment and elsewhere that Jubb was expressly made aware of the requirements of Birse's main contract, at least to the extent that they were being sub-contracted to Jubb;
b. The scope of Jubb's duty is identified at paragraphs 24.1, 25 and 59. The duty is alleged to have been concurrent and co-extensive with the implied contractual duty in the performance of its express obligations under the Appointment to exercise the care and skill reasonably to be expected of civil and structural consulting engineers possessing the experience and expertise appropriate to perform those obligations in connection with the Development. It is alleged (and for the purposes of these preliminary issues assumed) that the scope of Jubb's duty of care included the protection of Birse from economic loss. Birse alleges that the damage on which its claim in tort is founded is the financial damage it suffers "in satisfying any liability to the Claimant which it may be held to have as a result of Jubb's negligence";
c. The central importance of Birse's liability to the Claimant is emphasised by the allegation that breaches by Jubb "will have caused the defects … which the Claimant alleges and placed [Birse] in breach of its obligations to the Claimant": see [45]. In the same way, each pleaded breach of duty by Jubb alleges that it constitutes "a breach of Jubb's duty of care at common law, and will in turn have placed [Birse] in breach of clauses [x,y,z] of [Birse's main contract] and of clauses [a,b,c] of [Birse's] Warranty": see [45.1, 45.2, 45.2B, 45.3, 45.4, 45.5, 45.6, 45.7, 45.7B, 45.8A, 45.11, 45.13];
d. Birse claims that it will have suffered loss in the event that it is held liable to the Claimant; and it claims damages in respect of such loss which are equivalent to an indemnity against all sums which it is held liable to pay to the Claimant and against its own expenditure for the purposes of defending the claim brought by the Claimant: see [46];
e. It alleges that the "relevant damage" is "contingent upon the Defendant's liability to the Claimant" and that because that liability has not yet been ascertained time has not yet started to run. In the alternative, it alleges that time began to run when the Claimant's claim against Birse was first made, which it says was in June 2010: see [59.2].
The Case against Stuarts
The particular allegations of breach giving rise to a claim for damages against Stuarts are different but in substantially the same form as the pleaded allegations against Jubb. In paragraph 38 of its Re-amended Particulars of Claim against Stuarts Birse alleges that Stuarts' breaches "will have caused the defects … which are alleged by the Claimant and will have placed [Birse] in breach of its obligations to the Claimant under [Birse's] Warranty." The particulars of breach under paragraph 38 do not use the formula "and will in turn have placed [Birse] in breach of clauses [x,y,z] of [Birse's main contract]", but in respect of each allegation Birse pleads that the matters complained of "was in turn a breach of clauses [a,b,c] of the Building contract and/or of the implied terms set out [above] and hence … a breach of Stuarts' duty of care at common law." Birse's claim for damages is identical in form to the claim at paragraph 46 of the Jubb pleading. There is no paragraph on the scope of Stuarts' duty equivalent to paragraph 59 of the Jubb pleading.
It was not suggested that minor differences in Birse's pleadings make any difference to the overall position and I am unable to detect any difference in substance in the case being advanced on the two pleadings.
The Case against Geofirma
The pleading against Geofirma is in substantially the same form as that against Stuarts.
The following points may be noted:
a. Birse pleads that Geofirma's breaches of its duty of care "will in turn have placed Birse in breach of the terms of the main building contract and Birse's warranty", which is the formulation adopted in the Jubb pleading;
b. Birse pleads that "the scope of the duty of care owed by Geofirma to Birse (to exercise reasonable skill and care in performing the design and carrying out the works which it was contractually engaged by Birse to execute so as to avoid causing Birse to suffer economic loss) is such as to enable Birse to recover from Geofirma as damages any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd
...finally identified is nothing to the point. 63 At the hearing, Ms Parkin relied on Co-Operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd [2014] EWHC 530 (TCC); [2014] P.N.L.R. 21. There was some irony in this, given that it was Ms Parkin's unequivocal submission under Ground 2 of the substantiv......
-
Interface Europe Ltd v Premier Hank Dyers Ltd Airedale Chemical Company Ltd (Third Party)
...of Payne and Co might suffer what loss does not apply here. 72 Let me now turn to the case of Co-Operative Group Ltd v Birse and Others 2014 EWHC 530 TCC. In that case the claimant employed Birse as its main contractor for the construction of a warehouse. Birse employed a subcontractor to d......
-
Wph Developments Limited V Young & Gault Llp (in Liquidation)
...rigid codification of the circumstances in which damnum occurs (Cooperative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd (in liquidation) & Others [2014] EWHC 530, paragraph 53). In my judgement they offer a useful aid to understanding a tricky concept. [74] Looking first at the “damaged asset” rule,......
-
Vinci Construction UK Ltd v Eastwood and Partners (consulting Engineers) Ltd
...Outred [1982] 1 WLR 86; Nykredit v Edward Erdman (No.2) [1997] 1 WLR 1627; Co-Operative Group Limited v Birse Developments Limited [2014] EWHC 530 (TCC). 39 Snowden's case is that the relevant damage for the purpose of section 2 of the Limitation Act is its liability to Vinci caused by c......
-
Security for performance
...v Stewart Milne Group Ltd [2019] CSIh 47. as to inal certiicates, see Chapter 5. 561 Co-Operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd [2014] EWhC 530 (TCC) at [61]–[92], per Stuart-Smith J. as to restrictions on assignment, see paragraphs 20.73–20.78. It is conceivable that an assignment, if......
-
Litigation
...when the underlying breach of contract occurred (and the guarantor became liable): Co-Operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd [2014] EWHC 530 (TCC) at [42], per Stuart-Smith J. 148 De Soysa v De Pless Pol [1912] AC 194 at 202 (PC). See also Oxford Architects Partnership v Cheltenham La......
-
Table of cases
...Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 707 III.26.56 III.26.56 Co-Operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd [2014] EWHC 530 (TCC) II.10.74, II.10.106, II.12.157, III.26.42 Co-Operative Group Ltd v Carillion JM Ltd [2014] EWHC 837 (TCC) III.26.71 Co-Operative Group Ltd v John ......
-
Negligence
...hCa 16 at [16]–[17]; Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2008] 1 aC 281. 243 Co-Operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd [2014] EWhC 530 (TCC) at [28]f, per Stuart-Smith J. 244 as to the recovery of damages, see Chapter 13. 245 Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998] 1 WLr ......