Pearson Education Ltd v. Charter Partnership Ltd (Record no. 106570)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02958cam a2200193 4500
001 - CONTROL NUMBER
control field L136979
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 070307s2007 xxk f 000 0 eng d
035 ## - SYSTEM CONTROL NUMBER
System control number (Sirsi) u136979
041 0# - LANGUAGE CODE
Language code of text/sound track or separate title eng
245 00 - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Pearson Education Ltd v. Charter Partnership Ltd
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC.
-- 2007
490 #0 - SERIES STATEMENT
Series statement Estates Gazette
Volume/sequential designation [2007] 09 EG 203 (CS)
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc. [2007] EWCA Civ 130, 21 February 2007. The appellant architects (Charter) appealed against a decision that it was liable to pay damages to the respondent company (Pearson) as a result of a breach of its duty to design an adequate rainwater system in a warehouse leased to Pearson. Pearson had suffered substantial financial loss when books that it owned were damaged in a flood at the warehouse, designed by Charter. It was agreed that the cause of the flooding was the inadequate drainage capacity and that in specifying that capacity Charter had failed to exercise reasonable skill and care. There had been a flood 8 years before which resulted in a financial loss to the previous tenant (IBD) and it was found by loss adjusters that the rainwater drainage system was at fault. This information was not conveyed to IBD. Charter submitted that (1) the first flood brought their potential liability to an end in that it was not reasonably foreseeable that any further damage would flow from the defective design once it had led to a flood, as it was reasonable to expect that this would lead to the identification of the defect. It was not fair, just or reasonable that Charter's duty of care should extend beyond the occurrence of the first flood and the occurrence of the first flood broke the chain of causation; (2) any negligent act or omission on Charter's part that caused the damage had occurred outside the 15-year limitation period in the Limitation Act 1980 s.14B. "Held": it was not considered reasonable that a defendant could claim that they should not be held liable for a defect because the defect was likely to be discovered prior to a claimant being affected. When specifying the capacity of the drainage system, the appellant had had no reason to expect that an inspection would be carried out that would reveal any error. The fact that a third party (the loss adjusters after the first flood) became aware of a latent defect was no reason to dee m the defect to be patent to others who neither knew nor ought to have known of the discover. With reference to Section 14B, the relevant act or omission of the appellant was not its initial mistake in adopting an inadequate drainage capacity, but the later act of specifying to the subcontractor a design capacity that the appellant should have known was inadequate; that had occurred within the limitation period. The appeal was dismissed.
590 ## - LOCAL NOTE (RLIN)
Local note KA
650 24 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name entry element LIMITATION ACT 1980 S14B
651 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME
Geographic name England and Wales
Chronological subdivision 1543-
690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN)
Topical term or geographic name as entry element MANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE-DUTY OF CARE-LIABILITY
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA)
Suppress in OPAC 0
Holdings
Withdrawn status Lost status Source of classification or shelving scheme Damaged status Not for loan Home library Current library Shelving location Date acquired Total Checkouts Full call number Barcode Date last seen Copy number Price effective from Koha item type
    Dewey Decimal Classification     London London Journal article 07/03/2007   L136979 136979-1001 06/08/2019 1 06/08/2019 Law report