United Marine Aggregates Ltd v GM Welding & Engineering Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 779 (TCC) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HT-11-63 |
| Date | 02 April 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 779 (TCC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart
Case No: HT-11-63
and
Mr Ronald Walker QC (instructed by Fisher Scoggins Waters) for the Claimant
Mr Stuart Hornett (instructed by Lefevre LLP) for the Defendant
Mr Philip Shepherd QC (instructed by Kennedys Law) for the Part 20 Defendant
Hearing dates: 13 – 21 February 2012 & 5 March 2012
Introduction
This is a fire case. The Claimant ("UMA") owns a large aggregate processing plant on the Thames, near Greenwich, at which there was a very serious fire on the morning of Sunday, 3 February 2008. UMA contends that the fire was caused by hot work being carried out by the Defendants setting fire to the rubber lining in a steel hopper or chute.
The Defendants deny that they caused the fire but, if they are liable, they claim an indemnity from their public liability insurers, Novae Syndicates Ltd ("the insurers"). The insurers deny liability on the ground that the Defendants were in breach of a Burning and Welding Warranty in the policy, which is expressed to be a condition precedent to any liability.
The Defendants also assert positively that the fire was caused by hot work being done in an adjacent building at the same time under the supervision of an employee of UMA.
Thus the principal issues in the case are as follows:
(1) Whether the fire broke out in the location alleged by UMA (the screening house) or the location alleged by the Defendants (the scalping house)?
(2) If the fire broke out in the screening house, whether it was caused by any breach of duty, whether in contract or tort, by the Defendants?
(3) If the fire was caused by any breach of duty by the Defendants, whether the Defendants are entitled to be indemnified under the policy?
The second of these issues also raises the question of whether UMA knew the exact method of working that was to be adopted by the Defendants and approved it, even though it may not have complied with UMA's own written procedures for hot work.
The primary case of the insurers is that the warranty required that all combustible materials in the immediate vicinity of the work that could not be moved had to be covered and protected by some non-combustible material. They contend that the rubber lining of the underpan to the A side primary screen to which hot work was being carried out by the Defendants was not so covered and protected. Alternatively, they contend that the Defendants did not carry out a fire safety check at regular intervals during the work and between 30 and 60 minutes after completion of the work.
The facts
UMA's aggregate processing plant at Murphy's Wharf, Greenwich, is the largest, or one of the largest, such plants in Europe.
Ballast, in the form of material dredged from the river or sea bed, is brought to the site by barge. It is discharged at the site onto a spoil heap from which it is transferred into the sorting and processing system. The material is transferred by conveyor belt to a building known as the scalping (or scalpen) house where the largest stones and lumps are removed. This is done by passing the material over a screen which permits material with a diameter of less than 75 mm to pass through it into a type of hopper or chute, known as an underpan, below.
This underpan has an opening at its base measuring about 2 m by 500 mm, through which the material falls onto a conveyor belt below (CV6). CV6 then transports the material out of the scalping house and up a 35 m inclined section to another building, known as the screening house. Within that building it continues for about another 20 m or so and finally it deposits the material into a container known as the top box.
The top box is a rectangular container, at right angles to the line of CV6, which contains a mechanism for feeding the material into two screens either side of CV6. These are known as the A side and B side primary screens. The screens are large steel vibrating containers which permit material below a particular size to pass through into an underpan below. From the underpan the material is discharged to feed further screens below.
Each of the primary screens is a large steel rectangular hollow box — shaped like a shoe box with no top and bottom. It is braced by a series of hollow horizontal tubes running from side to side that are bolted at the ends to each side. Square steel flange plates are welded to the ends of each tube in which four holes are drilled to take the bolts which fix the flange plates to the side of the screen. There are two layers of tubes, and the tubes on each layer are about 350 mm apart.
To the upper surfaces of the tubes, and parallel to the sides of the screen, are welded horizontal steel bars that support the screening mats. The screening mats are made of polyurethane and resemble the wooden gratings found in 18th century warships, only much finer. To judge by the photographs, each mat is about 1 m long and about 300 mm wide. They are kept in place by steel bars that are bolted to the sides and the central bar of the screen. The square apertures in the mats permit the smaller particles in the material to pass through into an underpan below the screen. In order to achieve this, the screen vibrates. However, this produces substantial stresses in service to the flange plates at the ends of the horizontal tubes. The most common form of failure takes the form of cracks that propagate outwards from the bolt holes in the flanges. From time to time these cracks have to be "vee-ed out" and then repaired by welding. In order to do this the bolts have to be removed and, using a small angle grinder, a groove is cut along the line of the crack which is then filled by welding. Cutting a groove in this way in preparation for welding is known as "vee-ing out".
Below each primary screen is an underpan, which is a little like an elongated builder's skip. Its dimensions at its widest part, being the top, are the same as those of the screen above. It is some 7–8 m long and about 2.5 m wide. The bottom of the underpan is roughly horizontal, but the shorter sides are at a fairly shallow angle to the horizontal so that the dimensions of the horizontal base are much smaller than the dimensions of the top. The underpan is divided into two sections by a central partition running along its length, which has the shape of an inverted V. This partition does not extend to the full height of the underpan and so its ridge is significantly below the sides of the underpan. In the middle of the base of each half of the underpan is a chute which permits the material to be discharged from the bottom for further processing.
In the centre of the underpan, the vertical distance from the base to the underside of the lower layer of the tubes of the primary screen is about 3 m, so that a man standing on the base of the underpan could probably not reach the tubes above him and certainly could not carry out any work on them without some form of platform. However, if he was to walk along the length of the underpan and up the sloping ends there would come a point at which he could reach the tubes quite comfortably, but the gap between the tubes and the sloping side continues to decrease so that at each end of the underpan the tubes are only about 300 mm or so above the sloping side (or base).
Between the lower edge of the long sides of the screen and the top of the side of the underpan there is a gap. It has been reduced in width by the addition of a long strip of metal which has been welded to the top of each side of the underpan. The strip has been fixed at a slight angle to the vertical so that it projects beyond the line of the side of the screen. In other words, if one held a small marble against the side of the bottom of the screen and let it go, on falling it would probably be caught by the strip of metal and deflected into the underpan. The reduced gap between the top of the strip of metal and the underside of the screen is sufficient for a man to put his arm through into the underpan.
From time to time it is necessary for someone to enter the underpan for maintenance or inspection purposes. This can be done in one of two ways. Either the person can wriggle through the tubes of the screen above and descend at a point along the sloping end of the underpan where there is suitable clearance, or access can be gained from below by way of the chutes in the base of the underpan.
In order to get into the underpan through the screen it is of course necessary that the mats have been removed at the point of access. If hot work is being carried out on one of the screens then the screening mats above it will usually be removed because they are combustible and thus present a fire risk.
Each screen is supported by means of four large steel brackets, known as rosta brackets, that are bolted onto the side of the underpan and the side of the screen.
The sides and base of the underpan are lined with a red rubber material known as Semperit. The purpose of this is to prevent attrition of the metalwork of the underpan from falling stones. The tubes are also encased in the same or a similar material, presumably for the same reason. From time to time the lining has to be replaced. According to the evidence of Mr Smith, a charge hand who worked for the Defendants, which was not challenged on this point, the current lining material was introduced in 2006 to replace a similar material that had been used before. This former lining material was black.
Mr Smith said also, again...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Marine Aggregates Ltd v G M Welding & Engineering Ltd and Another
...DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION TECHOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart [2012] EWHC 779 (TCC) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lord Justice McFarlane Case No: A1/2012/117......
-
Fire Damage And Insurance
...Marine Aggregates Ltd v G.M.Welding & Engineering Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 779 The claimant (UMA) had engaged the defendant (GM) to carry out works at its plant which included welding. A fire occurred as a result of these hot works. Court found that GM was not liable to UMA for this f......
-
2012 Construction Case Law Summary (January - June)
...insurers and professionals alike. Fire damage and insurance: United Marine Aggregates Ltd v G.M.Welding & Engineering Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 779 The claimant (UMA) had engaged the defendant (GM) to carry out works at its plant which included welding. A fire occurred as a result of t......
-
Case Law Update Construction And Property 2012
...insurers and professionals alike. Fire damage and insurance United Marine Aggregates Ltd v G.M.Welding & Engineering Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 779 The claimant (UMA) had engaged the defendant (GM) to carry out works at its plant which included welding. A fire occurred as a result of th......
-
Damages
...18. Compare Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 246; United Marine Aggregates Ltd v GM Welding & Engineering Ltd [2012] EWHC 779 (TCC) at [268]–[289], per Edwards-Stuart J (appeal allowed in part, on unrelated grounds [2013] EWCA Civ 516). See also Orthocare (UK) Ltd v We......
-
Insurance
...per Fraser JA. See also Woolfall & Rimmer Ltd v Moyle [1942] 1 KB 66. 170 United Marine Aggregates Ltd v GM Welding & Engineering Ltd [2012] EWHC 779 (TCC) at [201]–[202], per Edwards-Stuart J (appeal allowed in part, on other grounds [2013] EWCA Civ 516). See also Grace Electrical Engineer......
-
Table of cases
...III.24.401, III.24.423, III.24.426, III.24.433 United Marine aggregates Ltd v GM Welding & Engineering Ltd [2013] EWCa Civ 516; [2012] EWhC 779 (TCC) II.13.72, III.17.58, III.21.46 United Motor Search pty Ltd v hanson Construction Materials pty Ltd [2013] FCa 1104 III.21.138 United petroleu......
-
Employment, health and safety
...upon the terms of the contract between the relevant protagonists: cf United Marine Aggregates Ltd v GM Welding & Engineering Ltd [2012] EWHC 779 (TCC) at [168]–[184], per Edwards-Stuart J (appeal allowed in part, on other grounds: [2013] EWCA Civ 516). 174 It is beyond the scope of this tex......