Nitrigin Eireann Teoranta v Inco Alloys Ltd
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; (1991) CILL 707-709(3)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: The defendants (I) supplied N with steel alloy tubing which subsequently cracked and was repaired by them, though the cause was not distinguished. A year later the pipe burst, causing an explosion and damage to surrounding plant. N sued for damages claiming I had been negligent. The defence argued the the action was statute-barred as the plaintiffs had a cause of action in 1983, following the example of the Pirelli v Oscar Faber case. N countered, contending that their cause of action was acquired at the later date, after damage to equipment other than the pipe was incurred. Consideration of other cases, such as D & F Estates v Church Commissioners and Murphy v Brentwood DC led the court to decide in favour of N.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS45700 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 54602-1001 |
The defendants (I) supplied N with steel alloy tubing which subsequently cracked and was repaired by them, though the cause was not distinguished. A year later the pipe burst, causing an explosion and damage to surrounding plant. N sued for damages claiming I had been negligent. The defence argued the the action was statute-barred as the plaintiffs had a cause of action in 1983, following the example of the Pirelli v Oscar Faber case. N countered, contending that their cause of action was acquired at the later date, after damage to equipment other than the pipe was incurred. Consideration of other cases, such as D & F Estates v Church Commissioners and Murphy v Brentwood DC led the court to decide in favour of N.