Barclays Bank plc v Fairclough Building Ltd and others
Language: English Series: All England Law Reports ; [1995] 1 All ER 289-306(8)Publication details: 1995Subject(s): Summary: CA 6 May 1994. B engaged F to carry out work at its premises including the cleaning of asbestos roofs. F engaged a sub-contractor to carry out the cleaning, using high pressure hoses to jet-clean the sheets, a known method of cleaning asbestos roofs which required simple precautions to prevent water entering the building, and causing contamination by asbestos fibres and dust. Neither F nor the sub-contractor took any precautions, thus breaching the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987. On completion of work it was found the premises were contaminated with asbestos dust, and required extensive remedial work costing £4m. B accused F of breaching contractual terms that the work would be carried out in an efficient manner, and comply with any statutory provisions applicable to the work. F contended that B should have taken proper precautions, and that liability, if any, should be reduced by F's contributory negligence. 'Held' appeal allowed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | Z7207 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 70398-1001 |
CA 6 May 1994. B engaged F to carry out work at its premises including the cleaning of asbestos roofs. F engaged a sub-contractor to carry out the cleaning, using high pressure hoses to jet-clean the sheets, a known method of cleaning asbestos roofs which required simple precautions to prevent water entering the building, and causing contamination by asbestos fibres and dust. Neither F nor the sub-contractor took any precautions, thus breaching the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987. On completion of work it was found the premises were contaminated with asbestos dust, and required extensive remedial work costing £4m. B accused F of breaching contractual terms that the work would be carried out in an efficient manner, and comply with any statutory provisions applicable to the work. F contended that B should have taken proper precautions, and that liability, if any, should be reduced by F's contributory negligence. 'Held' appeal allowed.