好色先生TV

A claim for damages relating to alleged defects in the design and construction of a mixed-use scheme in Woolwich has sparked a war of words between the scheme鈥檚 project team.

Willmott Dixon filed a suit last month against five firms in an effort to recoup more than 拢47m from those it claims are responsible for problems with the external wall system (EWS) on the 拢250m Woolwich Central mixed-use scheme.

Last summer, the firm鈥檚 chairman Colin Enticknap used his statement in its latest report and accounts to rip into the supply chain and others on the job, accusing them of trying to 鈥渆scape鈥� paying up and promising that it would use the courts to recover what it reckons it is owed.

In those accounts, Willmott Dixon said it had initially expected the cost of repair work to be 拢25.7m but admitted that the extent and scope of what was required had gone up which, along with rising labour and materials costs, meant the current bill at the time was 拢43.9m.

It now says the cost of the work has gone up again, to around 拢46.67m, with the contractor鈥檚 claim seeking damages for this amount along with VAT.

好色先生TV envelope specialist Prater Ltd, and its parent company Lindner Exteriors, have been named in the writ alongside architect Sheppard Robson, AIS Surveyors and Aecom, which was employed as a fire engineer.

The co-defendants filed their defences at the Technology and Construction Court last week, each with their own views of where the blame lies.

While Aecom鈥檚 lawyers said all of the firm鈥檚 co-defendants bear some responsibility, Prater and Lindner single out Willmott Dixon and Sheppard Robson, the latter of which claims that Prater was 鈥渆xclusively鈥� responsible.

The case comes after Willmott Dixon reached a settlement with the client, Tesco, last April, under which the contractor agreed to carry out remedial works, which began in the second quarter of 2022.

Willmott Dixon, the main contractor on the 17-storey building, claims the Kingspan Kooltherm K15 insulation 鈥� a material that featured on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment 鈥� that was used behind the rainscreen cladding was a 鈥渃ombustible material鈥� and that this meant that the external wall system (EWS) was 鈥渘ot adequately fire resistant鈥�.

The firm alleges that Prater had 鈥渄esigned and constructed the EWS containing those defects鈥� by including the allegedly unsuitable material and that in doing so was 鈥渋n breach of both its absolute obligations and its obligations to carry out its design with reasonable skill and care鈥�.

It said Prater had been obliged to carry out its designs to 鈥渁 standard no less exacting than that of an architect or engineer experienced in designing cladding systems for substantial residential developments鈥� and alleged that, had Prater complied with its contractual obligations, the defects would not have existed.

In its defence, Prater said the contractor鈥檚 claim failed to 鈥減roperly to engage with the actual scope, meaning and effect鈥� of the contract between the two firms.

It said that it had tendered on the basis of Sheppard Robson鈥檚 original specification, which specified the use of a non-combustible insulation, and that prior to winning the tender, it had become apparent to the architect and the contractor that the specified insulation could not meet the desired thermal requirements without exceeding the required maximum thickness.

Prater was consulted and it was concluded that Kingspan K15 could solve the problem, the firm鈥檚 lawyers said, while maintaining that this advice was given 鈥渆xpressly on the basis that it was for [Willmott Dixon] and Sheppard Robson to satisfy themselves of the suitability of this product for use within the EWS on the development鈥�.

They also claim that Prater gave this advice prior to the sub-contract and therefore 鈥渙utside of its obligations thereunder鈥�.

Sheppard Robson 鈥� which Willmott Dixon also accused of failing to provide 鈥渃ompetent advice鈥� with regards to the cladding system 鈥� said it was not contractually obliged to consider how Prater鈥檚 design would comply with 好色先生TV Regulations, placing 鈥渆xclusive responsibility鈥� for detailed design of the system with the envelopes specialist.

It accused Prater of choosing 鈥渄ifferent EWS components to those specified鈥� by the architect in its outline specification and said it had raised concerns 鈥渙n numerous occasions鈥� about the installation of cavity barriers and other alleged defects.

Aecom has been accused by Willmott Dixon of breaching their contractual obligations, with the contractor claiming that a 鈥渃ompetent fire engineer鈥� would have advised that the proposed EWS products were unsuitable.

The consultant鈥檚 lawyers responded by claiming that, while it was responsible for carrying out a fire strategy report, Aecom had been 鈥渦nder no obligation to ensure, nor did it warrant, that materials used in the construction would be compliant with any given requirements or standards,鈥� and that this responsibility fell to Sheppard Robson, Prater and AIS.

They added the firm had been under no obligation to 鈥減roactively鈥� look into which materials were being used for the EWS or assess their compliance with regulation 鈥渦nless specifically provided with details of those materials and specifically requested to provide that advice鈥�, which it claims it was not.

It went on to accuse Willmott Dixon of 鈥渃ontributory negligence鈥� for 鈥渇ailing to instruct a review of the detailed design of the EWS and the materials proposed for use in its construction鈥�.

>>See also: Risk and responsibility: unpicking the first post-Grenfell court decisions

AIS Chartered Surveyors, the remaining subcontractor named in Willmott Dixon鈥檚 claim, issued a final certificate for the job in March 2014, which confirmed the development had been completed in line with the 好色先生TV Regulations and could be occupied.

By doing so, Willmott Dixon alleges that AIS failed to ensure that the development complied with statutory requirements, and did not use the 鈥渟kill, care and diligence which may reasonably be expected of a qualified and competent approved inspector鈥�.

In its own defence, AIS said the contractor was not entitled to damages against it because it had been employed directly by Tesco.

It also rejected the allegation that the use of Kingspan K15 had rendered the development unfit for habitation and repeated Aecom鈥檚 allegation of contributory negligence, in this instance for making or approving changes to the materials used in the EWS 鈥渨ithout consulting or informing AIS鈥�.

It admitted that there were 鈥渟ome cavity barrier installation defects鈥�, but insisted it had 鈥減erformed its services and/or duties as approved inspector with reasonable skill, care and diligence鈥�.

The scheme consists of an 84,000 sq ft Tesco superstore and seven residential tower blocks, covering more than 250 flats, the largest of which is nine storeys.

Willmott Dixon declined to comment.