View
218
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/30/2019 House of Lords -British Telecommunications PLC v. James Thomson and Sons (Engineers) Ltd. (Scotland)
1/4
Accessibility
Email alerts
RSS feeds
Contact us
Home
Parliamentary business
MPs, Lords & offices
About Parliament
Get involved
Visiting
Education
House of Commons
House of Lords
What's on
Bills & legislation
Committees
Publications & records
Parliament TV
News
Topics
You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords
Publications > Judgment Index > Judgment
Judgment - British Telecommunications PLC v. James Thomson and Sons (Engineers)Ltd. (Scotland) continued
(back to preceding text)
Clause 22.3 as similarly modified provides:
"(1) The contractor where clause 22A applies, and the employer where either clause
22B or clause 22C applies shall ensure that the joint names policy referred to in clause
22A.1 or clause 22A.3 or the policies referred to in clause 22B.1 or in clause 22C.1and 22C.2 shall either provide for a recognition of each subcontractor nominated by
the architect as an insured under the relevant joint names policy or include a waiver by
the relevant insurers of any right of subrogation which they may have against any such
nominated subcontractor
in respect of loss or damage by the specified perils to the works and site materials
where clause 22A or clause 22B or clause 22C.2 applies and, where clause 22C.1
applies, in respect of loss or damage by the specified perils to the existing structures
House of Lords -British Telecommunications PLC v. James Thomson... http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd98
of 4 10/29/2011 2:4
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd9812http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd98127/30/2019 House of Lords -British Telecommunications PLC v. James Thomson and Sons (Engineers) Ltd. (Scotland)
2/4
(which shall include from the relevant date any relevant part to which clause 18.1.3
refers) together with the contents thereof owned by the employer or for which he is
responsible; and that this recognition or waiver shall continue up to and including the
date of issue of the certificate of practical completion of the subcontract works (as
referred to in clause 14.2 of the subcontract NSC/4 or NSC/4) or the date of the
determination of the employment of the contractor (whether or not the validity of that
determination is contested) under clause 27 or clause 28 or, where clause 22C applies,under clause 27 or clause 28 or clause 22C 4.3, whichever is the earlier. The provisions
of clause 22.3.1 shall apply also in respect of any policy taken out by the employer
under clause 22A.2 or by any joint names policy taken out by the contractor under
clause 22B.2 or under clause 22C.3 in respect of a default by the employer under
clause 22C.2.
"(2) Except in respect of the policy referred to in clause 22C.1 (or the joint names
policy referred to in clause 22C.3 in respect of a default by the employer under clause
22C.1) the provisions of clause 22.3.1 in regard to recognition or waiver shall apply to
domestic subcontractors. Such recognition or waiver for domestic subcontractors shall
continue up to and including the date of issue of any certificate or other document
which states that the domestic subcontract works are practically complete or the date
of determination of the employment of the contractor as referred to in clause 22.3.1
whichever is the earlier."
In the definition of specified perils fire is the first and therefore it is agreed that the damage in question in the present case
was due to one of the specified perils.
The crux of the argument for Thomson as put by the Lord Justice Clerk at 1997 S.C. 59, 67B-C is:
"If the subcontractor is aware that the employer has undertaken to insure against the
risk of negligence on the part of the subcontractor, then the latter is entitled to assume
not merely that he need not himself insure but that he is not under any duty of care to
the employers with regard to any loss or damage caused by their actings." (i.e. theactings of the subcontractor and his servants)
Adopting this as their basis counsel for Thomson argue that having regard to the wording of the relevant provisions o f the
main contract the risk of fire being caused to existing structures while the works were being carried out was assumed, from
the outset, by B.T. In argument in the courts below counsel for B.T. accepted that this was the result of clauses 20.2 and22C.1 as between B.T. and the main contractor. However, in the light of further cons ideration and in particular of the reported
decision of the official referee in Kruger Tissue (Industries) Ltd. v. Frank Gallyers Ltd. (1998) 57 Con. L.R. 1, in your
Lordships' House, he did not repeat this concession.
It is true, as counsel for Thomson argue, that B.T . were obliged to obtain insurance cover in respect of the existing
structures, together with the contents thereof, owned by them, for the full cost of reinstatement, repair or replacement of
loss or damage due to inter alia fire. The contractual arrangements therefore envisaged in the event of fire, B.T. would be
indemnified by its insurers for t he full cost of reinstatement irrespective of whether the loss or damage arose due to an act of
God o r an act or omission on the part of the main contractor or a subcontractor such as Thomson.
So far, I think that Thomson's argument can be supported. However, a question arises as to the terms o f the insurance
cover which B.T. were obliged to take out. In ordinary circumstances the insurer being obliged to indemnify B.T. would be
entitled to the benefit of any rights of action that B.T. had against any party whose actions caused or contributed to the loss
in question. This aspect of t he matter is expressly dealt with under the main contract by the provision that any subcontractor
nominated by the architect is to have the benefit of an insured under the policy or have the benefit of a waiver by the relevant
insurers of any right of subrogation which they may have against any such nominated subcontractor. There is no such
provision in the case of a domestic subcontractor in respect of the policy referred to in clause 22C.1, that is to s ay, the policy
for insuring existing structures against specified perils.
It follows in my opinion that the terms of the provision for insurance of existing s tructures in respect of specified perils,while they provide for the recognition of a nominated subcontractor as an insured under the policy or that such nominated
subcontractor shall have the benefit of a waiver of any right of subrogation which the insurer may have against him, provide
no such protection for any domestic subcontractor.
It is true, as was pointed out by the Lord Ordinary and the majority of the Second Division, that the absence of a
protection against the right of subrogation does not of itself establish such a right but in considering whether the terms of the
insurance policy which required to be taken out under the main contract are such as to make it unjust, unfair or unreasonable
House of Lords -British Telecommunications PLC v. James Thomson... http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd98
of 4 10/29/2011 2:4
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd9812http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd98127/30/2019 House of Lords -British Telecommunications PLC v. James Thomson and Sons (Engineers) Ltd. (Scotland)
3/4
that Thomson should have a duty of care to B.T., it is in my opinion necessary to take full account o f all the provisions of themain contract with regard to the requirement for insurance and the terms on which such a policy should be taken out.
It is true also that insofar as the existence of the ob ligation on the employer to t ake out insurance against the specified
perils in respect of existing st ructures relieves the main contractor from responsibility that he otherwise would have had forthe negligence of subcontractors under clause 20.2, the risk of Thomsons actings causing such loss as part o f the
responsibility of the main contractor will be covered. However, in considering the nature of the risk undertaken by the insurer
the fact t hat the insurer will have a right o f subrogation against a domestic subcont ractor such as Thomson will legitimately
affect the question of premium. I conclude therefore that any element of double insurance which may be involved in giving
effect to B.T .'s argument is not a sus tainable commercial objection to the s uccess of that argument since practicalconsiderations of premium will be affected by the right which the insurer has under the contract in particular, his right or
recourse against Thomson if Thomson has a duty of care toward B.T.
Counsel for Thomson faced the hurdle to the success of his argument which I have stated in the preceding paragraph very
squarely but in essence his answer was that in considering whether or not a duty of care should be held to be imposed upon
Thomson by the circumstances of this case the existence of the obligation to insure on B.T. should determine the matter and
that the terms o f that insurance were not important.
The question is whether or no t it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care and in considering that question if the
terms of a contract are to be taken into account it must be right to take account o f all the terms of the contract that are
relevant to the question. In my opinion it is of crucial significance in the present case that a distinction is made between
nominated subcontractors on t he one hand and domestic subcontractors on the other in the terms of the insurance policy to
be provided by B.T. under t he contract. In my view the contractual provisions reinforce rather than negative the existence of a
duty of care toward B.T. by Thomson in the circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, in my opinion, this appeal
succeeds and the case should be remitted to the Court of Session for a proof before answer.
The view which I have reached is in accordance with the weight of opinion expressed by textbook writers who have
considered this subject and t o whose views we were referred. Counsel for B.T. referred also to criticisms of allowing
contractual provisions to which parties to litigation were not themselves parties to be considered in deciding whether or not a
duty of care between the parties to the litigation ex isted. These criticisms were based on the view that to do so was to deviate
unjustifiably from the rules on privity of contract. Under the law of Scotland, where exception to the doctrine of privity ofcontract is recognised under some circumstances, different considerations might apply. It is unnecessary for the purposes of
the present case to cons ider these arguments since the contractual provisions founded on do not, in my view, alter the
situation between B.T. and Thomson which would obtain if they did not require to be cons idered at all, and it is unnecessary
and it would be in my view undesirable in the present case to cast any doubt on the correctness of the authorities to which we
were referred dealing with this matter.
Although the position taken up by B.T. in argument in this House differed somewhat from the pos ition taken in the Court o f
Sess ion, it seems to me to be a case where cost should follow success and B.T. should be entitled to its costs against
Thomson both here and in the Court of Session.
LORD MUSTILL
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
For the reasons he has given I would also allow the appeal.
LORD COOKE OF THORNDON
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. For the
reasons he has given I would also allow the appeal.
LORD HUTTON
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
I agree with it and for the reasons which he has given I would allow this appeal.
previous
LordsParliamentCommonsSearchContact UsIndex
Parliamentary copyright 1998 Prepared 22 January 1998
A-Z index
Glossary
Contact us
Freedom of Information
House of Lords -British Telecommunications PLC v. James Thomson... http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd98
of 4 10/29/2011 2:4
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd9812http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd98127/30/2019 House of Lords -British Telecommunications PLC v. James Thomson and Sons (Engineers) Ltd. (Scotland)
4/4
Jobs
Using this website
Copyright
House of Lords -British Telecommunications PLC v. James Thomson... http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd98
of 4 10/29/2011 2:4
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd9812http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd9812Recommended