Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd v Supershield Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Hon. Mr. Justice Ramsey,THE HON.MR.JUSTICE RAMSEY |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 927 (TCC) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HT 07–177;HT 07–178 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Date | 01 May 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 927 (TCC)
The Hon. Mr. Justice Ramsey
Case No: HT 07–177;HT 07–178
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Tim Lord QC (instructed by Watmores) for the Part 20 Claimant
Mark Cannon QC (instructed by Kennedys) for the part 20 Defendant
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
On 9 October 2001 a nut and bolt connection on a float valve failed and water from a storage tank overflowed into the basement of a new office building for Slaughter and May in the City of London. The water caused a flood which led to extensive damage to the electrical equipment in the basement.
Originally proceedings were brought by claim forms dated 14 June 2007 against the Contractor, Skanska Construction Ltd ("Skanska") formerly known as Kvaerner Construction Ltd, by three parties: Trucidator Ltd, the lessee of the premises and Slaughter and May, the occupiers, by claim form in case HT-07–177 and Deka Immobilien Investment GMBH ("Deka"), the freeholder/lessor, by claim form in case HT-07–178.
Skanska had constructed the new office building under a building contract dated 28 May 1999 ("the Building Contract") entered into with a developer, Helical Bar (Chiswell Street) Ltd. They had also provided warranties to Trucidator Ltd, Slaughter and May and Deka, who I shall refer to, together, as the claiming parties.
Skanska joined the mechanical and electrical subcontractor, Haden Young Ltd ("Haden Young") into the proceedings. They had been retained by Skanska to install the sprinkler system as part of the mechanical and electrical works. In turn Haden Young joined Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd, formerly Preussag Fire Protection Ltd ("Siemens"), into the proceedings. They had entered into a sub-contract with Haden Young to supply and install the sprinkler system.
Siemens likewise then joined Supershield Ltd ("Supershield") into the proceedings. They had a sub-contract with Siemens to install the sprinkler system.
There was a mediation in June 2008 attended by all parties. This led to two Tomlin Orders by which Siemens settled the claims with the parties up the contractual chain but maintained its Part 20 claim against Supershield. That claim and the ability of Siemens to recover the settlement sum from Supershield form the subject matter of this Judgment.
The Flood
There is little in issue between the parties as to the sequence of events that led to the flood.
The water storage tank for the sprinkler system was located in the basement of the premises. It stored water which, in the event of the operation of sprinkler system in the building, would be pumped through the pipework serving the sprinklers. The tank was divided into two parts and the mains water supply was connected to each part of the tank. When the level of the water in one part of the tank dropped, a float valve would operate to refill the water tank. This float valve was an industrial version of the ball valve typically found in domestic water supply tanks. The float device is connected to a lever arm which operates the valve lever which turns the water on and off. The lever arm was attached at one end to the float and at the other end to the valve lever. The connection to the float was by two nuts and bolts some centimetres apart. It was one of these connections which failed in the following circumstances, causing water to overflow.
At about 5:00pm on 9 October 2001 a sprinkler pump was activated, the precise cause for this being uncertain. When a sprinkler pump operates it causes water to be drawn from and returned to the tank. In doing so, the float causes the valve to operate. In this case when one of two float valves operated in this way a nut and bolt connection failed and the bolt fell out. This meant that the valve was in the open position letting water into the tank. Without any fixed connection to the float at the end of the lever arm, the valve did not shut down when the tank reached the required level but continued to fill up.
The water from the tank overflowed into a bunded area which contained a 600 mm high wall designed to retain any overflowing water. There were drains in the tank room floor within the bunded area but these became blocked or partially blocked by packaging, insulating or other material on the tank room floor.
Water then overflowed the bund, passed over the door threshold to outside the tank room. The water reached electrical equipment in the basement which then suffered substantial damage. The Building Management System ("BMS") was in the process of being installed and received a number of signals indicating conditions arising from the incident. Those would have been displayed as a signal on the panel and might have given an audible warning. However, at that time the BMS was not being monitored 24 hours a day.
Those involved in the installation of the float valve
Under the sub-contract dated 23 December 1999 between Haden Young and Siemens, the Sub-Contract Works were described as
"Supply and installation of fire protection sprinkler system inclusive of incoming fire main from point of connection, sprinkler tank, skid mounted pump set, and all associated design works."
That evidently included the work in supplying and installing the float valve. Siemens then entered into sub-contracts and supply contracts for the work to the sprinkler system.
One was a sub-contract between Siemens and Supershield, also dated 23 December 1999. In that document there are three places where there are references to the work which was to be carried out by Supershield. First in Schedule 1 headed "The Subcontract Sum" paragraph (B) which is intended to contain "Details of the Prime Contract", states as follows:
"To supply site operatives for the installation of the sprinkler system complete with all sprinkler control valves, pumps and associatedpipework, valves, starters and controllers. Floor zone valves with all equipment and risers."
Secondly Schedule 2, headed "The Subcontract Works and Site Operations", states:
"To install the complete sprinkler system with all associated equipment, including testing and commissioning the electrical pumping units with all associated pipework valves, starters controllers. Including all small bore drains, controls pipework. Testing for the works, commissioning, marking up record drawings and compliance with the company quality control systems."
Thirdly, Schedule 4 contains a list of the Contract Documents which included drawing 68246–001.
Siemens contend that the descriptions in Schedules 1 and 2 and the drawings in Schedule 4 make Supershield responsible for the installation of the float valve. Supershield dispute that and say that the effect of their obligation under the subcontract was that the reference to "complete sprinkler system" meant that they had to install and test the sprinkler pipework to and from the sprinkler tank. They say that the float valve and its arm were part of the sprinkler tank, just as the housing for the ball float valve and the valve plates were.
The supply and installation for the sprinkler tank was subcontracted by Siemens to AC Plastics Industries Ltd ("AC Plastics"). They quoted for the supply, delivery and installation of the sprinkler tank by a quotation dated 12 October 1999. That quotation included provision for two ball valve boxes and two ball valve plates. On 6 December 1999 Siemens instructed AC Plastics to proceed with the manufacture and installation of the tank.
The ball valve assemblies were the subject of a separate supply contract between Siemens and Lansdale Viking Ltd. They were manufactured by The Peter Smith Valve Company Ltd. The ball valve assemblies were delivered to the site with other valves which formed part of the sprinkler system.
Within Siemens' subcontract with AC Plastics, there were a number of connections which AC Plastics were to provide. In relation to pipes in the tank which were fitted with vortex inhibitors, these pipes terminated in stub flanges on the outside of the tank. In the case of the ball valve assemblies, AC Plastics were to provide holes in external plates to allow the end of the incoming water pipe to be connected through the plate to the ball valve. The end of this pipe consisted of a piece of pipe referred to as a "stool piece" which fitted between the valve at the end of the incoming water pipe and the wall of the tank.
The Issues
The central question which I have to decide is whether Supershield is liable to Siemens for the sums which Siemens have agreed to pay to Haden Young in settlement of Haden Young's claims against Siemens. This question raises a number of issues on the facts of this case:
(1) Under the Sub-contract was Supershield obliged to install the ball valve and/or tighten up the nuts and bolts which held the ball valve float arm in place and/or to see that this was done?
(2) Did Supershield perform that obligation?
(3) Did the nut and bolt on the ball valve float arm become undone on 9 October 2001 because they were insufficiently tightened by whoever installed them or were they loosened at some stage between practical completion in December 2000 and the flood in October 2001?
(4) In either event, are Supershield liable to Siemens for loss and damage sustained by the failure of the ball float valve arm to operate on 9 October 2001?
(5) Alternatively, does Siemens have a claim against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hi-Lite Electrical Ltd v Wolseley Uk Ltd Dab Pumps Spa (Third Party)
... ... some similarity to the situation dealt with in the case of Supershield Limited v Siemens Building Technologies FE Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 7 ... ...
-
Provimi France S.A.S. v Stour Bay Company Ltd
...of the settlements. She directed me to the summary of the principles set out in the judgment of Ramsey J in Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd. v Supershield Ltd [2009] EWHC 927 (TCC) at [80]. In order for Provimi to recover the amounts paid in settlement of the five claims, she submitte......
-
125 OBS (Nominees1) and Another v Lend Lease Construction (Europe) Ltd and Another
...dispute on the applicable principles of law. A useful summary, which I gratefully adopt, is provided by Ramsey J in Siemens Building Technology FE Ltd v Supershield Ltd [2009] EWHC 927 (TCC) as follows: "(1) For C to be liable to A in respect of A's liability to B which was the subject of a......
-
AXA S.A. v Genworth Financial International Holdings, Inc.
...which, if [the indemnifier] had had the conduct of the defence himself, [the indemnifier] would have set up”. (4) Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd v Supershield Ltd [2009] EWHC 927 (TCC), in which it was said that if the indemnified party seeks to recover the amount of a settlement wit......
-
Settlement Of Disputes: Passing On Liability
...historically found difficult to pass on to sub-contractors. Reference: Siemens Building Technologies FE Limited v Supershield Limited [2009] EWHC 927 (TCC) This article was written for Law-Now, CMS McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.......
-
Case Law Review - Construction, Property & Real Estate (May/June 2009)
...Cases on criteria for award of indemnity costs. Settlement With Third Party Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd v Supershield Ltd [2009] CILL 2723 TCC Following the flooding of Slaughter & May's office, Siemens as sub-sub-contractor had settled with the parties up the contractual chain......
-
Case Law Review - Construction, Property & Real Estate (July/August 2009)
...decision. Adrian Williamson QC PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Settlement With Third Party Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd v Supershield Ltd [2009] TCLR 7 TCC Already reported in CILL, following the flooding of Slaughter & May's office, Siemens as sub-sub-contractor had settled with the par......
-
Table of cases
...I.4.26 Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] hCa 19 III.20.95 Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd v Supershield Ltd [2010] BLr 145 (Ca), airming [2009] EWHC 927 (TCC) I.2.56, II.12.151, II.13.65, II.13.113, II.13.116, III.23.68 Siemens Industry Software Pte Ltd v Lion Global Ofshore Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC ......
-
Dispute resolution
...& Property Consultants LLP [2010] BLR 179 at 182 [19(b)], per Coulson J. 280 Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd v Supershield Ltd [2009] EWHC 927 (TCC) at [80(5)], per Ramsey J (airmed [2010] BLR 145 (CA)). If a threatened or actual claim has a high chance of success, the fact of settleme......
-
Security for performance
...v Laing O’Rourke Midlands Ltd [2008] EWhC 1016 (TCC) at [75], per ramsey J; Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd v Supershield Ltd [2009] EWhC 927 (TCC) at [96], per ramsey J (airmed [2010] BLR 145 (CA)); Scottish Widows Services Ltd v Harmon/CRM Facades (in liq) [2010] CSOH 42 at [1], per ......
-
Damages
...at 369, per McHugh JA; Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Waterbrook at Yowie Bay Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 224 at [107], per Ipp JA. 185 [2009] EWHC 927 (TCC), [2010] BLR 145 (CA). 186 [2009] EWHC 927 (TCC) at [99]–[104]. His Lordship’s decision was upheld on appeal: [2010] BLR 145 (CA). 187 [19......