Bodycote Heat Treatments Ltd v Vacuum and Atmosphere Services Ltd

Where damage results from a component becoming detached after specialist work, res ipsa loquitur may assist only if the claimant excludes its own responsibility for weakening or disturbing the component. If that possibility remains, breach cannot be inferred on the balance of probabilities. A court may reject an unpleaded alternative cause which is unsupported by independent evidence. The absence of evidence from particular witnesses does not create a general rule requiring adverse conclusions; its significance depends on the evidence and circumstances of the individual case. Contractual terms providing the applicable standard and indemnity may make it unnecessary to determine an alternative implied term.

Bodycote Heat Treatments Ltd claimed damages from Vacuum and Atmosphere Services Ltd after a gas deflection plate detached from a furnace hot zone, melted during operation and damaged Bodycote’s plant and components belonging to Rolls Royce.

The claim alleged breach of contract, negligence and entitlement to an indemnity under Bodycote’s terms. VAS argued that Bodycote’s employees had disturbed or incorrectly refitted the plate after VAS’s work. The central issues were the cause of the detachment, the application of res ipsa loquitur, liability under the contractual terms and the recoverability of disputed heads of loss.

1. Liability. The claim succeeded in substance. The court found that the gas deflection plate had been inadequately fixed, most probably by VAS after the hot zone arrived at Bodycote’s premises.
2. The suggested explanation that the plate had come loose through ordinary operation was unpleaded and unsupported by the evidence. It was rejected. The equipment was designed so that the plates should not detach during ordinary use.
3. Res ipsa loquitur applied subject to a vital qualification. Bodycote had to exclude the possibility that its own workforce had weakened or disturbed the plate. Once that possibility was excluded, the detachment pointed to VAS’s breach. If it could not be excluded, breach would not be established on the balance of probabilities.
4. The evidence showed that VAS had removed and replaced the plates when modifying the hot zone. Defects and inadequate fixings were identified on arrival. The court considered it probable that the plates were lifted and replaced after the relevant photographs were taken. Bodycote’s subsequent maintenance work did not provide a persuasive explanation for the defective final configuration.
5. The proximity between the Bodycote work on 3 July 2019 and the incident on 5 July was coincidental. The hot zone was not removed, the work did not require access to the plates, and the proposed manoeuvre for accessing them in situ would have been highly awkward and unlikely to be undertaken without being recorded.
6. The absence of evidence from particular engineers did not require an adverse inference. Dawkins v Carnival plc was confined to its specific factual context and did not establish a general principle binding the court.
7. VAS did not contest that its conduct amounted to breach of contract and/or negligence and that Bodycote was entitled to the clause 8 indemnity. The express contractual terms made it unnecessary to decide the alternative implied term under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
8. The claimed cost of external labour for rebuilding the hot zone was not proved on the appropriate basis and was disallowed. The claim for management time was reasonably estimated and allowed in full.