09.07.2004

Hewdens pays for Canary Wharf tower crane collapse

Hewdens has paid an undisclosed settlement to Yarm Road Limited (YRL) and Cleveland Bridge UK Limited (CBUK) following the collapse of a tower crane at the HSBC headquarters, Canary Wharf in May 2000 which killed three workers. The settlement brings to an end more than three years of litigation.

Michael Whittard, Peter Clark and Martin Burgess, who were working for Hewdens at the time, were killed, and two other employees injured, when a MAN Wolffkran Hydro 32BF tower crane collapsed while a specialist team from Hewden was increasing the height of the crane through the process of “climbing”.

At the time of the accident the tower crane was one of five tower cranes on site which had been hired by YRL from Hewden Tower Cranes, the tower crane division of Hewden Stuart, which was subsequently sold to concrete contractor PC Harrington and now operates as HTC Plant, and under the Construction Plant-hire Association’s (CPA) hire contract conditions. After the collapse, however, discrepancies arose in establishing which company, Hewden or YRL, was legally in control of the crane when the accident happened, and therefore responsible for the damages incurred.

A first instance decision given by Judge Richard Seymour QC at a November 4, 2002 hearing at the Technology and Construction Court placed the exclusive control of the crane during the “climbing process” with Hewden. The decision referred to clause 13 (c)(ii) of the CPA hire contract conditions, which states: ‘the Hirer shall not be responsible for damage, loss or injury due to or arising: during the erection and/or dismantling of any plant where such plant requires to be completely erected/dismantled on site, always provided that such erection/dismantling is under the exclusive control of the Owner or his Agent’.

Hewdens subsequently argued against the decision in a Court of Appeal, questioning whether the “climbing” process actually fell within the boundaries of the erection and dismantling of a crane as described in the CPA conditions. This raised the issue of whether or not the company was in “exclusive control” of the crane during the climbing operation when the accident took place. Acting on behalf of YRL, Adrian Williamson QC rejected that clause 13 (c)(ii) applies only when plant is being erected at the beginning of the hire period, implying that any intermediate heightening of the crane should fall under the term “erection” used in the clause, therefore suggesting that Hewden was in control of the crane at the time of the collapse.

Lord Justice Pill concluded that the “climbing” operation should indeed be considered as part of the erection process and that it cannot be said that the erection operation is completed during erection at the beginning of the hire period when up to 27 metres of additional crane sections are to be added to the height of the crane by subsequent “climbing” at a later date.

The majority of eight preliminary issues heard were decided in YRL’s and Cleveland Bridge UK Limited’s favour. Hewdens appealed against four of the preliminary issues relating to the interpretation of various clauses in CPA conditions and the Court of Appeal gave judgement on 31 July 2003, with the majority upholding the decision on all four issues. Full responsibility for the collapse was placed upon the firm’s shoulders. Hewdens was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

The quantum trial started on 8 June 2004, but negotiations resulted in a substantial settlement being paid to YRL and CBUK. The original claim against Hewdens was initially pleaded at just under £8 million, but at the time was estimated at double this sum.

Martin Scott, Partner of the Construction Department at Walker Morris Solicitors, which represented Yarm YRL and CBUK, said: “We are delighted for our clients. We have a long-standing relationship with them and have worked on a number of successful cases. This case in particular has been important and will have wider implications for plant-hire contracts.”