The fundamental principle with respect to latent damage was already set out by Lord Bridge in a well-known case of Murphy vs Brentwood District Council (1991) 1 AC 398 that if a builder builds a structure that comprises a latent defect which later causes the injury to person or any damage to other property, he will be liable in tort. However, if the latent defect just damages the building or system itself and can be repaired at a cost, then that loss will be purely economic loss and cannot be recovered in tort. Before the Murphy vs Brentwood case it was thought that one element of a building could be considered as distinct from another element, so that damage to one part of the structure/element caused by an unseen defect in another part…show more content… How then again sublet work to sub-subcontractor Southern Insulation for the installing the insulation of chilled water pipes. Linklaters got collateral warranties from Main contractor and subcontractor which were supported with guarantees from their respective companies, but no warranties were provided by from Southern. There was no written proper contract between How and Southern instead there was just a small paper work. McAlpine received complete indemnity for any breach of sub-contract. The restoration works were completed in 1996 and after their completion by the other contractors Linklaters moved into the building.
In June 2006, a leakage found on one of the chilled water pipeline and thorough investigation revealed the extensive corrosion of chilled water pipeline in the premises. Linklaters after advice from an expert replaced the corroded pipeline throughout the building to carry on the routine works in the building.
Litigation is the process of engaging legal action in court for resolving a dispute. The court is then able to implement or determine one party’s rights or responsibilities. In construction industry litigation is not preferred to resolve disputes as it cost much more than alternative dispute resolution methods and also it takes more time than other methods but in case of Linklaters there was a disagreement between parties on