S.E.E. Company Ltd v Public Lighting Services Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: GRIFFIN J.
• Judgment Date: 25 March 1988
• Neutral Citation: 1988 WJSC-SC 751
• Docket Number: (266/85)
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 25 March 1988

1988 WJSC-SC 751

THE SUPREME COURT

Finlay C.J.

Griffir J.

McCarthy J.

(266/85)

S E E CO LTD v. PUBLIC LIGHTING SERVICES LTD & ANOR

S.E.E. COMPANY LIMITED T/A SOUTH EAST ELECTRIC COMPANY

-v-

PUBLIC LIGHTING SERVICES LIMITED AND PETITJEAN AND COMPANY (U.K.) LIMITED

Citations:

SEE CO LTD V PUBLIC LIGHTING LTD & ANOR UNREP 1985/9/2743

Synopsis:

CONTRACT

Breach

Proof - Failure - Flood lights - Sports ground - Erection of steel masts - Collapse of mast - The plaintiffs had contracted to erect eight steel masts, each carrying flood lights, at the sports ground of the Three Rock Rovers hockey club - The plaintiffs ordered the masts (of a specified type) from the first defendant and the latter obtained them from the manufacturer, the second defendant - On 13/1/84, shortly after the masts had been erected, one of the masts collapsed and subsequently the others were found to be in an unstable condition - The plaintiffs had to replace all the masts - The plaintiffs claimed in the High Court damages from the first defendant for breach of contract and they claimed from the second defendant damages for negligence - At the trial neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants adduced any evidence of the strength of the wind at the time of the mast's collapse or at any time between the erection of the masts and the time of the collapse - The masts supplied by the first defendant were capable of withstanding wind speeds of 143 k.p.h. or 89 m.p.h. - There was some evidence that the masts had not been installed correctly - The trial judge held (19/7/85) that the masts supplied by the first defendant were of an acceptable standard and that the plaintiffs had not proved their claims on the balance of probabilities - The plaintiffs appealed against the order of the High Court - Held that the appeal should be disallowed - (266/85 - Supreme Court - 25/3/88) [1988] ILRM 677

|SEE Co. Ltd. v. Public Lighting Services|

1 JUDGMENT delivered the25th day of March 1988 by GRIFFIN J.[NEM DISS]

2 Three Rock Rovers Hockey Club have their sports ground at Marley Grange, Rathfarnham which they own through a company called Rocky Creek Company Limited. In 1982 they were anxious to have a floodlighting system installed in the premises and the company retained the services of Mr. B.J. Featherstone, a member of the club, as their consultant electrical engineer. He prepared a specification in respect of the necessary work and submitted it to some eight electrical contractors including the plaintiffs. Before preparing the specification, he selected the type of lantern that he wished to have, being a Philips lantern, and worked out the height necessary to illuminate the hockey pitch. He got the information in relation to the lanterns from the Philips catalogue, worked out the wind surface area from the Philips lantern, and was able to calculate the area of windage for the lantern concerned. In relation to the columns and masts he consulted the brochure of the second named defendants ("Petitjean").

3 The relevant portions of the specification provided that :

4 (a) the contractor should supply and install and erect in positions shown on the drawings eight No. 14.5 metal hinged type lighting columns, complete with flange plate and single access door;

5 (b) each column should be complete with crossarm head frame to accommodate five 2 KW metal halide floodlights, the columns and head frame to be hot dipped galvanised finish to BS 729/71 maintenance free pattern;

6 (c) each column should be complete with maker's recommended anchor bolts;

7 (d) the columns should be capable of accommodating a minimum headweight of 95 kg excluding the head-frame, and windage area of 1.72 sq m;

8 (e) the columns and head frame to be of Messrs Petitjean Continental 14.5 m pattern or equal and approved;

9 (f) the lighting columns to be installed directly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and recommendations;

10 (g) the contractor should include for supervising the installation of foundation bolts when the foundation bases are being prepared by others;

11 (h) Philips HNF 002 floodlighting projector units to be used as the lamps.

12 The contractors were invited to tender on the basis of two alternatives -

13 (a) a tender based on a hinged mast and

14 (b) on the basis of a 16 m fixed mast.

15 The specification, which is dated November 1982, was sent to the plaintiffs, who contacted the first named defendants, who are the Irish agents of Petitjean, asking for a quotation in respect of the columns. The first named defendants did not receive a copy of the specification, but were informed of the weight to be carried by the mast, the type of lamps to be used, the windage area involved and the location of the project. The first named defendants telephoned Petitjean asking for a quotation informing them of the weight, the type of lamps, and the windage area but not of the location. Petitjean some days later telephoned the first named defendants and gave a quotation for the two alternative columns required and on the 29th November 1982 confirmed the quotations in writing. The relevant quotation, having regard to the events which subsequently happened, was that in respect of "8 No. fixed masts BO type, double door, standard flange plate with anchor bolts complete with crossarm support to carry 5 No. Philips HNF 002 floodlights as above" at a mounting height of 16 metres. With this quotation in writing there were enclosed extracts from the Petitjean brochure which included page 39 of the brochure. This page was entitled "calculation" and included ( inter alia ) information and calculations relative to Wind Loading and Wind pressure and speed, and 4 columns headed wind condition 1, 2, 3 and 3 exposed respectively. Those tables showed in respect of each of the 4 wind conditions the pressure in kilogrammes/sq metres and speed in kilometres per hour which their masts were capable of withstanding at different heights ranging from 0 metres to 50 metres. The relevant portion for the purpose of this judgment is that at a height of 15 metres the wind speed for wind condition 1 is 143 km/h, for wind condition 2 is 169 km/h, for wind condition 3 is 192 km/h and in respect of wind condition 3 exposed it is 214 km/h.

16 At the foot of the table these four columns were stated to correspond to the French standard NV 65 giving wind speed for various conditions.

17 The first named defendants gave a quotation to the plaintiffs in respect of the two alternatives required for the columns, and sent copies of all the documents which they received from Petitjean ( including those calculations ) to the plaintiffs on the 14th December 1982.

18 The plaintiffs sent to Mr. Featherstone alternative tenders in respect of the 14.5 hinged mast and the 16 m. fixed mast. As all the tenders received by Mr. Featherstone greatly exceeded the amount of money available to the club in respect of the work, he altered the specification to one providing for a 15 m. fixed mast, the weight bearing capacity and windage areas being maintained as in the original specification. Petitjean quoted a price for 8 BO fixed masts, 15 m. mounting height, for the first named defendants on the telephone, and confirmed this quotation by Telex. This information was transmitted to the plaintiffs by the first named defendants. In due course a revised tender was on the 7th March 1983 submitted by the plaintiffs to Mr. Featherstone and that tender was accepted. The plaintiffs ordered the eight 15 metre BO masts from the first named defendants on the 15th March 1983 and they in turn ordered them from Petitjean.

19 In the course of the work being performed by the plaintiffs for the club the masts were erected - as the learned trial Judge pointed out in his judgment, it was not clear precisely when they were erected or by whom the work was done, but it would appear from the transcript that it was not done by the plaintiffs. The masts were erected under the supervision of Mr. Featherstone. On the night of the 12th January 1984 or on the morning of the 13th January one of the masts collapsed and others were found to be in a dangerous condition. All seven masts which remained standing were taken down and had subsequently to be replaced.

20 The plaintiffs incurred expense in taking down and replacing the masts and other consequential expense, and in respect of the damage suffered by them they sued the first named defendants in contract and the second named defendants in tort. Effectively, the case made on behalf of the plaintiffs against both parties was that the column which collapsed was incapable of withstanding the wind which was blowing on the night of the collapse, and that the columns supplied to the...