Appeal by a labour only sub-sub-sub-contractor against a decision of Mr Justice Coulson that it is liable to indemnify the respondent, who was the party above it in the contractual chain, for workmanship defects which caused flooding in a block of flats. The principal issue in this appeal is whether the respondent’s failure to detect those defects precludes recovery under an indemnity clause, alternatively prevents recovery of the same sum as damages for breach of contract.
Held: A contractor whio had sub-contracted work with an indemnity was not by its own negligence prevented from enforcing the indemnity.
It is legitimate for any higher court hearing an appeal from a judgment of the court below to take into account any supplemental judgment or statement in which the judge amplified the reasons given for the main judgment:
Jackson, Beatson, Gloster LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 960, [2014] 1 WLR 3517, [2014] WLR(D) 309, (2014) 156 Con LR 1
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bath v Escott ChD 11-May-2017
Judgment need not follow hearing transcript
Application to have released the audio recording of a hearing to a county court, the applicant saying that the judgment was not a true record of the hearing.
Held: Rose J explained the status of the various elements: ‘the mere fact that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Construction, Litigation Practice
Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.534109