‘COMPLEX STRUCTURES’ AND THE SCOPE OF MURPHY

In Linklaters Business Services (formerly Hackwood Services Company) v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd [2010] EWHC 1145 (TCC), [2010] All ER (D) 162 (Jun) Mr Justice Akenhead declined to strike out a contribution claim on the ground that the party from whom contribution was sought did not owe a duty of care to the claimant in the litigation. There were held to be too many factual uncertainties to be confident that this was an appropriate case for striking out. One of the principal issues in the case was the scope of the ‘complex structure’ theory as explained by the House of Lords in Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398 and its application to a claim brought against a sub-contractor who is working on a larger construction project. The proposition that the sub-contractor is not liable in tort for the defect in ‘the thing’ which it has supplied but that it may be liable for the damage caused by that ‘thing’ to other property on the site was held to be one that should be applied to the actual facts as found at trial and was not suitable for resolution at the striking out stage.