Design Responsibility and Duty of Care under Collateral Warranties: Morrison Supermarkets PLC v LEM Estates Ltd [2020] ScotCS CSOH_31

Design Responsibility and Duty of Care under Collateral Warranties: Morrison Supermarkets PLC v LEM Estates Ltd [2020] ScotCS CSOH_31

Introduction

The case of W M Morrison Supermarkets PLC vs. LEM Estates Ltd (in liquidation) and others ([2020] ScotCS CSOH_31) presents a significant examination of contractual obligations and the scope of duty of care within collateral warranties in the Scottish construction and commercial leasing sectors.

The pursuer, W M Morrison Supermarkets PLC ("Morrison"), entered into agreements with various defenders, including LEM Estates Ltd ("LEM"), Struer Consulting Engineers Ltd ("Struer"), and Muir Construction Ltd ("Muir"). The core of the dispute revolves around the design and construction flaws in the car park of Morrison's leased supermarket premises at 295-301 Gallowgate, Glasgow, particularly the use of TarmacDry porous asphalt which led to significant ponding and surface damage.

Summary of the Judgment

Delivered by Lord Doherty on March 11, 2020, the Scottish Court of Session held that both Struer and Muir bore responsibility for the design aspects that led to the defects in the car park. The court meticulously analyzed the Appointment Agreement, the Design and Build Contract, and the collateral warranties to determine the extent of each party's obligations.

The court rejected the defenders' arguments regarding the irrelevance of certain averments and the application of personal bar defenses. It further addressed issues related to prescription under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, ultimately allowing Morrison's claims against Struer and Muir while dismissing certain late-filed claims due to prescription.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced established case law to shape its reasoning:

  • MT Højgaard A/S v E.ON Climate & Anor [2017] UKSC 59 – Highlighted the importance of contractual amendments and their implications.
  • Ben Cleuch Estates Limited v Scottish Enterprise [2006] CSOH 35 – Addressed issues related to representations and personal bar in contractual disputes.
  • Reid and Blackie, Personal Bar – Provided foundational principles on personal bar defenses.
  • Classic House Developments Ltd v GD Lodge & Partners and Others – Discussed the implications of failed inspections and design claims post-prescription period.

These precedents underscored the court's approach to interpreting contractual duties, the enforceability of collateral warranties, and the boundaries of personal bar defenses.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on several key interpretations of the contracts:

  • Appointment Agreement: The court determined that Struer was unequivocally responsible for all civil and structural engineering services, including the car park's design. The Agreement’s clauses clearly placed the onus of design liability on Struer, irrespective of suggestions made by third-party consultants.
  • Design and Build Contract: Muir, as the main contractor, accepted full responsibility for the design incorporated into the Employer’s Requirements. Specific clauses (e.g., Clause 2.17.2) bound Muir to ensure the design met the specified standards, thereby holding them accountable for the defects resulting from TarmacDry’s integration.
  • Collateral Warranties: Both Struer’s Struer Collateral Warranty and Muir’s Muir Collateral Warranty imposed a duty of care, mandating reasonable skill and diligence. The court found that the utilization of TarmacDry without adequate foresight and maintenance considerations breached these warranties.
  • Relevance of Defenders’ Defenses: The defenders' attempts to invoke personal bar defenses were dismissed as the court found no substantive basis where the pursuer held pre-existing rights that were inconsistent with their conduct.
  • Prescription: Regarding the Prescription and Limitation Act 1973, the court carefully analyzed whether the adjustments to the plaint fell within the prescribed period. It upheld the principle that new claims introduced post-prescription were invalid unless they aligned with the initial pleadings.

The court's meticulous construction of the agreements and warranties affirmed that both Struer and Muir had clear contractual obligations that were breached, directly resulting in Morrison's losses.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for the construction and commercial leasing industries in Scotland:

  • Clarity on Collateral Warranties: It reinforces the binding nature of collateral warranties, ensuring that contractors and consultants understand their comprehensive duties of care.
  • Design Responsibility: Contractors must diligently verify and execute design aspects as per contractual agreements, recognizing their full accountability for any inherent design flaws.
  • Prescription Considerations: Parties must be vigilant in adhering to prescribed timeframes for claims, ensuring that their pleadings are sufficiently specific to prevent premature prescription.
  • Rejection of Personal Bar Defenses: The decision limits the effectiveness of personal bar defenses in cases where contractual duties are clearly specified and breached.

This case serves as a precedent, emphasizing the necessity for clear contractual delineations of duty and the thorough execution of design and construction responsibilities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Collateral Warranties

A collateral warranty is a separate agreement that extends certain obligations from the main contract to third parties. In this case, Struer and Muir provided collateral warranties to Morrison, ensuring that their design and construction services met specific standards of care and diligence.

Prescriptive Period

Under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, claims must be brought within a specified timeframe, typically five years from the date the issue arose. If a claim is not filed within this period, it becomes "prescribed" and cannot be pursued.

Personal Bar Defenses

Personal bar is a legal defense where a defendant claims that the plaintiff should be barred from enforcing a right due to prior conduct, such as inconsistent actions or representations. The court in this case dismissed such defenses, finding them inapplicable.

Conclusion

The Morrison Supermarkets PLC v. LEM Estates Ltd judgment underscores the importance of clearly defined contractual obligations and the robust enforcement of collateral warranties within the construction and commercial leasing sectors. By affirming the design responsibilities of both Struer and Muir, the court ensures that entities engaging in such contracts maintain high standards of care, particularly concerning design and material selection.

Furthermore, the decision serves as a cautionary tale regarding the implications of prescription periods and the limitations of personal bar defenses. Parties involved in construction and leasing agreements must prioritize meticulous contract drafting, diligent adherence to agreed-upon standards, and timely action in asserting claims to safeguard their interests effectively.

Overall, this judgment contributes to the evolving landscape of Scottish commercial law, reinforcing accountability and promoting best practices in contractual engagements.

Case Details

Comments