Tesco v Constain - Thomson Reuters

2003 WL 21729349 Page 882003 WL 21729349 (QBD (T&CC)), [2003] EWHC 1487(Publication page references are not available for this document.)assumed by PHJ to Tesco and/or Costain in relationto the Redditch Store in 1993 and 1994?Answer: PHJ did not assume any duty of care toeither Tesco or Costain in relation to the Store in1993 or 1994.23. If PHJ did owe Tesco and/or Costain a dutyof care in relation to the Redditch store in 1993/4as alleged by Costain in its Amended Particulars ofClaim in Action No. HT-02-07, and on theassumption that PHJ was in breach of that duty ofcare as alleged by Costain, did Costain's cause ofaction in respect thereof accrue in 1993/4 or did itonly accrue at the time of the fire, namely 4 August2001?Answer: In 1993-1994.END OF DOCUMENTCrown Copyright.287. In the light of the answers which I havegiven to the preliminary issues it would seem that,subject to establishing that Costain was in breachof the duty of care which it was agreed it owed toTesco in respect of its inspection of the Store in theautumn of 1993 and the reports contained in Mr.Gibson- Leitch's letters dated, respectively, 19October 1993 and 27 May 1994, and subject towhatever benefit from reliance upon the provisionsof HLimitation Act 1980 ss.14A and 32 Tesco mayyet derive, Costain will be liable to Tesco only ifthe cost to Tesco of causing to have carried outwhatever works it would have caused to be carriedout if it had known of deficiencies in the firestopping and inhibiting works at the Store in1993/1994 would not have increased between thenand 9 January 1996, the date six years before thecommencement of Action 07. That, of course,assumes that, if there were any earlier breach of aduty of care, a cause of action in respect of itaccrued some time round about 1990 and that noreliance could successfully be placed upon theprovisions of HLimitation Act 1980 ss. 14A and 32in relation to it. It also assumes that the scope ofany earlier duty of care extended to the economiclosses caused to Tesco by the fire at the Store on 4August 2001.288. So far as PHJ is concerned, whether it hasany liability to Tesco for breach of the PHJAgreement would seem to depend upon proof ofsome deficiency in its work of design completedafter 9 January 1990, or proof of some failure afterthat date to react appropriately to some triggerwhich ought to have prompted it to review itsdesign, or proof of some failure to carry out acompetent inspection after that date. Whether PHJhas any liability in tort to Tesco would seem todepend upon proof of a breach of a duty of care, theproper scope of that duty in relation to the type oflosses to which it extended, and the benefit, if any,which Tesco can derive from the terms ofHLimitation Act 1980 ss. 14A.Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works