- Causation, contributory negligence, third party losses, LADs and concurrent delay (Saga v Fincantieri)
- Original news
- What was this case about?
- What did the court decide?
- Cooler failure—claim under the contract
- Cooler failure—contributory negligence
- Cooler failure—claim under the guarantee
- Ability of Acromas to recover cancellation costs
- Delay claim
- What should construction lawyers take note of?
Construction analysis: The Commercial Court considered various issues arising under a contract for the refurbishment of a ship. It held that the yard had owed a duty to use reasonable skill and care in cleaning the engine coolers, along with a duty to report on their condition—in identifying the yard’s obligations, the various contract documents should be read together unless there was a clear and irreconcilable inconsistency between them. However, while the yard had breached those duties, on the facts these breaches had not caused the engine failure. The court also considered that a claim for contributory negligence against the owner could not have succeeded in relation to works which had been sub-contracted by the yard, and that the owner would have been able to recover cancellation costs even though they had been suffered by a third party operator. It further held that, under the wording of the contract, there could be circumstances where the yard was not required to pay delay damages even though it had missed the completion date and was not entitled to an extension of time, and that the yard could only claim the benefit of a concurrent owner delay where it actually affected the completion date.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial