[2007] EWHC 361 (TCC), 15 February 2007. Concerned a claim brought by T against defendant contractor (D) for breach of contract and negligence with regards to water damage, and addressed the issues of when does a pipe burst and is what results automatically a flood. D was contracted to carry out hard landscaping works involved in an upgrade of the gallery, and was instructed to repair a damaged water main supplying the site. D's repairs, which involved reconnecting a pipe using a coupling and a valve, later failed and water escaped. The contract between the parties required T to insure the works against loss or damage caused by the specified perils as defined by T's insurance policy. It also required D to comply with the conditions in T's insurance policy. T contended that the damage was not caused by 'bursting or overflowing of water tanks, apparatus or pipes' or by a 'flood' for the purposes of the JCT standard form of building contract (1980 edition). "Held": two pipes joined by a coupling collectively constituted a pipe, and on the facts presented there had been a bursting for the purposes of the contract. In addition, given the large volume of water involved, the way it had entered the building and other key factors, there had been a flood for the purposes of the contract.