Pilkington United Kingdom Limited v CGU Insurance plc
Series: Building Law Reports ; [2004] BLR 97-110(14)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2004] EWCA Civ 23, 28 January 2004. The Tarmac Group (T) had installed glass panels, manufactured by Pilkington (P), in the roof and vertical panelling of the Eurostar (E) terminal at Waterloo Station. A small number then fractured in-situ, causing no personal injury or damage to the fabric of the terminal. E, anxious about future injuries, temporarily closed the terminal, commissioned a technical investigation and installed safety features under the panels. In February 2000 E commenced proceedings against T, who served a Part 20 claim on P claiming indemnity. P notified C G U (C) who rejected claim as falling outside policy cover. The dispute was settled by mediation and P contributed to the overall settlement but commenced proceedings against C to recover its contribution plus costs. P claimed the terminal was physically damaged by the installation of defective panels and the public was at future risk. "Held": the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that a defect or deterioration in a thing is not necessarily damage in itself. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS67479 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 125333-1001 |
[2004] EWCA Civ 23, 28 January 2004. The Tarmac Group (T) had installed glass panels, manufactured by Pilkington (P), in the roof and vertical panelling of the Eurostar (E) terminal at Waterloo Station. A small number then fractured in-situ, causing no personal injury or damage to the fabric of the terminal. E, anxious about future injuries, temporarily closed the terminal, commissioned a technical investigation and installed safety features under the panels. In February 2000 E commenced proceedings against T, who served a Part 20 claim on P claiming indemnity. P notified C G U (C) who rejected claim as falling outside policy cover. The dispute was settled by mediation and P contributed to the overall settlement but commenced proceedings against C to recover its contribution plus costs. P claimed the terminal was physically damaged by the installation of defective panels and the public was at future risk. "Held": the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that a defect or deterioration in a thing is not necessarily damage in itself. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.