Southfield School for Girls v Briggs & Forrester (Electrical) Ltd & Ors

A specialist asbestos contractor is responsible for contamination caused by adopting an unsafe removal methodology and carrying out the work recklessly. A main contractor or architect may reasonably rely on a licensed specialist’s plausible methodology, but must still exercise appropriate supervision and inspection duties. Breaches that are not causative do not justify contribution.

Where a main contractor settles the employer’s claim, the recoverable loss may be the amount of a reasonable settlement, including consequential costs. The court assesses reasonableness in the circumstances existing at settlement and does not conduct an unnecessarily exacting reconstruction of the hypothetical trial outcome.

The claim arose from extensive asbestos contamination at a school during electrical works in 2003. The claimants settled their claims against the first defendant, Briggs & Forrester, for £3.1 million. They then settled with the other defendants, B&W Asbestos Removal Specialists and Peter Haddon & Partners. The remaining dispute concerned contribution and indemnity between the defendants.

Briggs & Forrester alleged that B&W’s defective asbestos-removal work caused the contamination and sought damages for breach of contract and contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. It also sought contribution from the architect. The central issues were causation, the reasonableness of the settlement, the architect’s duty when relying on specialist contractors, and the proper allocation of liability.

1. B&W’s breach and causation. B&W owed implied contractual duties to identify a safe methodology and to perform the work in a good and workmanlike manner. Removing approximately 200–240 asbestos tiles under so-called semi-controlled conditions was wholly inappropriate. The expression was not recognised in the relevant regulatory scheme, and the work should have been performed under fully controlled conditions. B&W’s reckless and uncontrolled work caused almost all the contamination. The small contributory acts of Briggs & Forrester and the school were immaterial.
2. Architect’s reliance and supervision. An architect may rely reasonably on a specialist subcontractor’s plausible methodology where the work is specialist and the contractor is properly licensed. That reliance does not remove the architect’s duty to monitor work at appropriate stages. PHP should have obtained a written method statement, inspected when the ceilings were first opened, and responded promptly to the school’s warning letter. Those breaches were not causative of the contamination or loss. PHP therefore had no obligation to contribute.
3. Reasonable settlement. The measure of Briggs & Forrester’s contractual loss was the reasonable settlement paid to the school, together with interest and properly attributable costs. The court considered the likely evidence, litigation risks, settlement timing, costs and the claimant’s reasonable remediation decisions. The £3.1 million payment into court was reasonable. The court was not required to determine precisely what would have been recovered at trial.
4. Contribution. Under sections 1, 2 and 6 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, B&W and Briggs & Forrester were liable in respect of the same damage. A full indemnity was just and equitable because B&W’s defaults caused the damage, while Briggs & Forrester’s breaches were non-causative. B&W was required to indemnify Briggs & Forrester for the £3.1 million, interest and the costs properly payable to the claimants. Category (1) costs attributable to the claim against Briggs & Forrester were recoverable; costs attributable to B&W or PHP were not.