Image from Google Jackets

British Telecommunications plc v James Thomson & Sons (Engineers) Ltd

Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; [1999] 1 WLR 9-17(5)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: 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
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS59881 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 91002-1001

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