London Market - December 2009

Contractor’s agreement, asbestos, damage to property

In Corus UK Ltd v Cavendish (UK) Ltd & Others (7 August 2009) the claimant claimed damages against the first defendant contractor and the third defendant sub-contractor in respect of the removal of asbestos at office premises owned by the claimant. The contract was for the removal of ceilings that had been sprayed with asbestos, although there was overspray on the concrete beams above the ceiling that was to be covered with a sealant rather than removed.

Removal of the ceilings proved impractical due to their construction. The contractor suggested a revised method involving leaving the old ceiling, scraping the asbestos from it and installing a suspended ceiling underneath the older one. Sub-contractors carried out the works under the original contractor’s supervision.

Asbestos debris was found some ten years later in-between the old and new ceilings. It was agreed that the debris had probably been caused by the dragging of electrical cables over the old ceiling, which had resulted in the debris falling through the lighting wells onto the new ceiling.

The claimant sought to recover the cost of remedial works and argued that:

The advice from contractors had been inaccurate or misleading because under the revised method asbestos would be left on the underside of the old ceiling
Both contractor and sub-contractor were in breach of their duty of care in tort in failing to exercise reasonable skill and care in their removal of the asbestos coated materials by leaving them in situ in a loose and disturbed condition
The contractor owed a concurrent duty of care in tort to exercise reasonable skill and care in providing the services it had contracted to provide and was obliged to avoid causing economic loss and physical damage in doing so.

Held
The claimant’s claims were discussed:

It had been known that not all of the asbestos would be removed. The contractor would not have given a guarantee that every trace would be removed.
The works had been carried out in a competent manner. The debris was not from the underside of the older ceiling, it had been caused by the dragging of cables causing debris to fall through fittings.
Even if the work had not been carried out competently, it could not be said to have damaged the property.