- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd
Factual and Procedural Background
The Respondents commissioned construction of a factory in The City during 1969-1970. Their architects nominated the Appellants, specialist flooring sub-contractors, to install a magnesium-oxychloride composition floor in the main production area. No direct contract existed between Respondents and Appellants; the latter contracted only with the main contractors.
The floor allegedly began cracking in 1972. Claiming that the damage resulted from the Appellants’ negligent workmanship, the Respondents sued in delict (negligence) for approximately £200,000, covering replacement of the floor and consequential economic losses (storage, removal of machinery, lost profits, wages and overheads).
The Lord Ordinary allowed a proof before answer; the Second Division of the Court of Session affirmed. The Appellants appealed to the House of Lords, arguing that the pleadings were irrelevant and the action should be dismissed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the absence of contractual privity and in the absence of any danger to persons or other property, a specialist sub-contractor owes a duty of care in delict to the building owner for pure economic loss (the cost of replacing a defective floor and related financial consequences).
- Whether recognising such a duty would open indeterminate liability (“floodgates”) and therefore ought to be limited on policy grounds.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The duty of care recognised in Donoghue v. Stevenson extends only to preventing physical injury or damage to other property; it does not cover economic loss resulting from defects in the property supplied.
- Allowing recovery for pure economic loss would create “liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class,” contrary to sound policy.
- The Respondents should pursue any remedy in contract against the main contractors; delict is inappropriate.
- The pleadings contain no allegation of danger to persons or other property, rendering the action irrelevant.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The proximity between the parties was extremely close: the Appellants were nominated by the Respondents’ architects, knew the identity of the owner, and knew reliance would be placed on their specialist skill.
- Modern authority, especially Hedley Byrne and subsequent cases, recognises liability for economic loss where a defendant’s negligent performance causes foreseeable financial damage to a proximate plaintiff.
- The “floodgates” concern is speculative; the court should decide this case on its own facts, leaving more remote situations to future litigation.
- Excluding liability here would draw an arbitrary and illogical line between dangerous and non-dangerous defects even where the economic consequences are foreseeable.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 | Neighbour principle; duty of care based on proximity. | Forms the starting point; court asks whether duty should be extended beyond physical damage. |
| Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. [1964] AC 465 | Liability for economic loss where there is reliance on skill or judgment. | Used to justify extending duty where Respondents relied on Appellants’ specialist expertise. |
| Dynamco Ltd. v. Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. 1971 SC 257 | Refusal of economic-loss claim on “floodgates” grounds. | Distinguished; court considered proximity here much closer. |
| Wimpey Construction (U.K.) Ltd. v. Martin Black & Co. 1982 SLT 239 | Scottish case following Dynamco with reluctance. | Mentioned as reflecting judicial concern about policy limits. |
| Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty. Ltd. v. The Dredge “Willemstad” (1976) 136 CLR 529 | Economic loss recoverable where defendant knows specific plaintiff likely to suffer. | Cited as persuasive support; Appellants here knew Respondents’ identity. |
| Voli v. Inglewood Shire Council (1963) 110 CLR 74 | Standard of duty may depend on contractual parameters. | Used to discuss difficulties of defining duty when quality varies with contract. |
| Morrison Steamship Co. v. Greystoke Castle (Cargo Owners) [1947] AC 265 | Recovery of economic loss absent physical damage. | Cited to show prior acceptance of pure economic claims. |
| Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office [1970] AC 1004 | Modern approach: apply principle unless there is justification for exclusion. | Supported incremental development beyond earlier limits. |
| Anns v. Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 | Two-stage test: proximity and policy considerations. | Framework adopted by majority to analyse present facts. |
| Dutton v. Bognor Regis U.D.C. [1972] 1 QB 373 | Liability for cost of repairing dangerous building defects. | Illustrated extension of duty towards property damage and economic loss. |
| Batty v. Metropolitan Realisations Ltd. [1978] 1 QB 554 | Similar to Dutton; recognised economic loss linked to building defects. | Cited in discussion of the developing jurisprudence. |
| Bowen v. Paramount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd. (1977) 1 NZLR 394 | New Zealand acceptance of economic loss claims in building cases. | Referenced as persuasive Commonwealth authority. |
| Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works (1973) 40 DLR (3d) | Canadian debate on recovery for preventive expenditure. | Dissent endorsed by majority as persuasive. |
| Young & Marten Ltd. v. McManus Childs Ltd. [1969] 1 AC 454 | Availability of contractual remedies does not preclude tort duties. | Used to show existing avenues do not bar delictual liability. |
| Spartan Steel Alloys Ltd. v. Martin & Co. (Contractors) Ltd. (CA) | Limits on recovery for pure economic loss (majority) and contrary reasoning (dissent). | Mentioned as a decision that may require re-examination. |
| Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503 | Early statement on duty where careless act may injure another. | Quoted in historical discussion of duty based on danger. |
| Sparham-Souter v. Town and Country Developments (Essex) Ltd. [1976] QB 858 | Extension of duty to local authorities in building defects. | Cited in survey of post-Donoghue development. |
| Mount Albert Borough Council v. Johnson [1979] 2 NZLR 234 | Affirmed Bowen; reflects current New Zealand law. | Noted as consonant with majority view. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The majority (Judges Fraser, Russell, Keith and Roskill) applied the two-stage test from Anns:
- Proximity: The relationship was “as close as could be short of privity” because the Respondents nominated the Appellants, relied on their specialist skill, and the Appellants knew the identity and reliance of the Respondents.
- Policy/Limitations: No convincing reason existed to exclude liability. The floodgates argument was considered speculative; proximity would naturally confine claims. The court noted that fears of indeterminate liability have historically proven unfounded.
The majority emphasised that:
- Recovery for economic loss has previously been allowed (e.g., Hedley Byrne, Greystoke Castle).
- The distinction between physical damage and economic loss is artificial where the economic cost of repairing a defect is the foreseeable consequence of negligent work.
- Standard-of-duty concerns do not arise here because the Respondents knew the contractual specifications and relied on the Appellants’ expertise.
Judge Brandon dissented. He maintained that the Donoghue v. Stevenson duty is triggered only by danger of physical injury to persons or other property (excluding the defective item itself). Extending liability to mere defects would, in his view, impose de facto warranties between non-contracting parties and create uncertainty about quality standards.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The House of Lords affirmed the interlocutor of the Second Division; the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded against the Appellants.
Implications: The decision recognises, in United Kingdom law, that a specialist sub-contractor may owe a delictual (tortious) duty to a building owner for foreseeable economic loss arising from negligent work, even where there is no risk of personal injury or other property damage and no contractual relationship. The ruling reinforces the significance of proximity and reliance as limiting principles, marking an incremental but meaningful extension of negligence liability for pure economic loss.
Alert