Share
On appeal from the Cambridge County Court, the High Court has recently handed down its judgment in R&B Plastering Limited v UK Insurance Limited, which provides legal clarification in relation to the recoverability of rehabilitation payments in contribution claims.
Kennedys acted on behalf of R&B Plastering Ltd (R&B).
Background
Mr Eckford, a tacker, was engaged by R&B as a labour only subcontractor. R&B was engaged by the main contractor, Robert Norman Construction Ltd (RNC), to carry out various works on a house renovation including plasterboard tacking.
Mr Eckford fell through a hole between the first and second floor, which had been made on the instructions of RNC in order to move material between the floors. R&B settled Mr Eckford’s personal injury claim pre-litigation and sought a partial contribution from RNC’s insurer.
RNC’s insurer denied liability and R&B therefore commenced contribution proceedings for a part-recovery of damages and costs paid to Mr Eckford, NHS charges, and rehabilitation payments.
The case proceeded to a two day trial before HHJ Patrick Moloney KC sitting at Cambridge County Court on 15 May 2023 with judgment handed down on the 12 July 2023. The judge found that RNC was 50% liable, because it participated in the joint decision to cut a hole between floors for moving materials but, following delivery of such materials, failed to reinstate the floor or to prevent workers including Mr Eckford from accessing the room. The contribution claim therefore succeeded.
The appeal
RNC’s insurer failed in its appeal against the judge’s findings in relation to liability.
It also appealed in relation to the recoverability of certain rehabilitation payments made by R&B’s insurer to Mr Eckford under the Rehabilitation Code 2015. It argued that technically speaking they were not “damages” within the meaning of the Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978.
The judgment of the lower court was that the 1978 Act is not limited to recovery of damages but, by operation of section 2, additionally extends to any amount “such as may be found to be just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person’s responsibility for the damage in question” including for example costs.
HHJ Moloney KC drew comparison with rehabilitation expenditure funded directly by claimants from interim payments outside of the 2015 Code, which is a familiar head of loss in personal injury damages. He also made the important point that rehabilitation payments by insurers should be recoverable as a matter of public policy, otherwise they might be discouraged from participating in the “valuable scheme” of the 2015 Code.
Mrs Justice Foster accepted R&B’s submissions, and agreed with HHJ Moloney KC that a contribution under the 1978 Act is not required to be a proportion of “damages” and includes other items such as costs and rehabilitation payments.
He also referenced the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Hadley v Przybylo [2024] EWCA Civ 250 which confirmed that the costs of a claimant’s solicitor managing rehabilitation were recoverable in the litigation.
Comment
The judgment provides another factual example of a sub-contractor sharing liability with a main contractor following a construction site accident, where the main contractor had overall responsibilities for site safety and supervising sub-contractors.
It also provides important legal confirmation of the recoverability of rehabilitation payments in contribution claims which, as the High Court highlighted, supports the valuable aims of the Rehabilitation Code 2015 by removing a potential technical barrier to funding.
United Kingdom