The claimant had constructed a substantial windfarm according to an international standard later shown to be defective. The defendant argued that the contract also required that the work be to a standard guaranteed a service life of 20 years.
Held: The claim succeeded. The Court rejected the suggestion that MTH had been negligent, and he also rejected a number of allegations of breach of contract made by E.ON. However, he found for E.ON primarily on the ground that (i) clause 8.1(x) of the contract required the foundations to be fit for purpose, (ii) fitness for purpose was to be determined by reference to the TR, and (iii) para 3.2.2.2(ii) (and also para 3b.5.1) of the TR required the foundations to be designed so that they would have a lifetime of 20 years. He also held that this conclusion was also supported by clauses 8.1(viii) and (xv).
Judges:
Edwards-Stuart J
Citations:
[2014] EWHC 1088 (TCC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – M T Hojgaard A/S v EOn Climate and Renewables UK, Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another CA 22-May-2014
The claimant contracted with the defendants for the supply of a barge for delivery of equipment to offshore wind farms. The barge proved inadequate. The company supplied an alternative vessel, and the parties now disputed the financial consequences. . .
At TCC – MT Hojgaard As v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another SC 3-Aug-2017
The defendants had requested tenders for the design and construction of an offshore wind farm. The court now considered the situation arising because of inconsistencies between documents in the tender request. The successful tender was based upon an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Construction
Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.526250
