British Telecommunications plc v James Thomson & Sons (Engineers) Ltd
British Telecommunications plc v James Thomson & Sons (Engineers) Ltd
- 1999
- Weekly Law Reports [1999] 1 WLR 9-17(5) .
HL 10 December 1998. The pursuer (BT) entered into a contract (JCT Standard Form of Building Contract, Local Authorities with Quantities, 1980 ed. as amended) with the main contractor to refurbish and repair its premises. Under the contract the supervising officer could reserve to himself the final selection and approval of subcontractors, called `nominated subcontractors`. Any other was a `domestic subcontractor`. BT was obliged to take out an insurance policy protecting against specified perils, eg. fire. The main contractor entered into a contract with the defender (JT) to carry out steel work, and JT became a `domestic subcontractor`. Employees of JT were working on the premises when a fire broke out. BT averred imported fault in both JT and its employees, and raised an action for damages. JT claimed that in the light of the main policy that insurance should be taken out by BT it was unjust for JT to owe BT a duty of care in respect of the insured loss. "Held", appeal by BT allow
BT V JAMES THOMSON & SONS
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
DOMESTIC SUBCONTRACTORS
DUTY OF CARE
FIRE DAMAGE
Insurance
JCT STANDARD FORM OF BUILDING CONTRACT
NEGLIGENCE
NOMINATED SUBCONTRACTORS
HL 10 December 1998. The pursuer (BT) entered into a contract (JCT Standard Form of Building Contract, Local Authorities with Quantities, 1980 ed. as amended) with the main contractor to refurbish and repair its premises. Under the contract the supervising officer could reserve to himself the final selection and approval of subcontractors, called `nominated subcontractors`. Any other was a `domestic subcontractor`. BT was obliged to take out an insurance policy protecting against specified perils, eg. fire. The main contractor entered into a contract with the defender (JT) to carry out steel work, and JT became a `domestic subcontractor`. Employees of JT were working on the premises when a fire broke out. BT averred imported fault in both JT and its employees, and raised an action for damages. JT claimed that in the light of the main policy that insurance should be taken out by BT it was unjust for JT to owe BT a duty of care in respect of the insured loss. "Held", appeal by BT allow
BT V JAMES THOMSON & SONS
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
DOMESTIC SUBCONTRACTORS
DUTY OF CARE
FIRE DAMAGE
Insurance
JCT STANDARD FORM OF BUILDING CONTRACT
NEGLIGENCE
NOMINATED SUBCONTRACTORS