Latest:
Court cuts damages
00:00 08 Dec 1999
|
The Appeal Court last week upheld a 1998 High Court ruling that
contractor Dean & Dyball must foot half the bill for wind
damage to the roof of a historic dockyard building at Devonport.
But the court went on to rule that damages of £150,000 payable
by Dean & Dyball should be reduced by £27,285.
The reduction was imposed by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Mance and Justice Douglas Brown, on the basis of arguments by Dean & Dyball that it constituted extra expense over and above the repair work necessary and was therefore to be regarded as "betterment".
The case centres on the 225-year-old No1 Slip building, which had part of its roof torn off during gale force winds, gusting up to 128kmph on 8 December 1993. One section, measuring 45mx17m and weighing approximately 30t, was found in a neighbouring playing field.
Dean & Dyball, working with consulting engineer Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (SWK), completed the refurbishment of the roof in October 1990.
During the High Court trial in March 1998, an expert witness called by the Ministry of Defence said that the roof had been refurbished using modern 100mm-long round wire nails instead of 225mm-long cut nails, which were used by the shipwrights for the original structure.
The withdrawal resistance of the modern nails was one-sixth of the original nails and this contributed to the extensive damage to the roof.
In the High Court, the judge held SWK (now called Scott Wilson) and Dean & Dyball jointly liable. Scott Wilson has since settled with the MoD but Dean & Dyball appealed against both the finding that it was liable and against the level of damages.
Lord Justice Mance, in upholding the High Court decision on liability, said he considered that the judge had given balanced and understandable reasons for his decision.
However, as far as the level of damages was concerned, he agreed with Dean & Dyball's argument that when the roof was rebuilt, additional materials adding £27,285 to the cost were used and that they should not have to pay the cost of those materials.
The reduction was imposed by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Mance and Justice Douglas Brown, on the basis of arguments by Dean & Dyball that it constituted extra expense over and above the repair work necessary and was therefore to be regarded as "betterment".
The case centres on the 225-year-old No1 Slip building, which had part of its roof torn off during gale force winds, gusting up to 128kmph on 8 December 1993. One section, measuring 45mx17m and weighing approximately 30t, was found in a neighbouring playing field.
ADVERTISEMENT
Dean & Dyball, working with consulting engineer Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (SWK), completed the refurbishment of the roof in October 1990.
During the High Court trial in March 1998, an expert witness called by the Ministry of Defence said that the roof had been refurbished using modern 100mm-long round wire nails instead of 225mm-long cut nails, which were used by the shipwrights for the original structure.
The withdrawal resistance of the modern nails was one-sixth of the original nails and this contributed to the extensive damage to the roof.
In the High Court, the judge held SWK (now called Scott Wilson) and Dean & Dyball jointly liable. Scott Wilson has since settled with the MoD but Dean & Dyball appealed against both the finding that it was liable and against the level of damages.
Lord Justice Mance, in upholding the High Court decision on liability, said he considered that the judge had given balanced and understandable reasons for his decision.
However, as far as the level of damages was concerned, he agreed with Dean & Dyball's argument that when the roof was rebuilt, additional materials adding £27,285 to the cost were used and that they should not have to pay the cost of those materials.
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Viewed Articles
ADVERTISEMENT