Barclays Bank Ltd v Fairclough Building Ltd [1994] 3 WLR 1057

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: Fairclough Building Ltd, a contractor, was hired by Barclays Bank Ltd to clean the roofs of a storage warehouse. Fairclough Building's failure to adequately clean the roofs led to asbestos contamination, resulting in substantial remedial work costing £4 million. Barclays Bank Ltd sued Fairclough Building for breach of contract. Fairclough Building contended that damages should be reduced due to contributory negligence by Barclays Bank, arguing that the bank had failed to supervise the work properly.

Issue: The central issue was whether contributory negligence could be used to reduce contractual damages in a case of strict contractual obligation, especially when there was no concurrent tortious liability.

Held: The Court of Appeal held that contributory negligence could not be applied to reduce damages in cases involving a breach of a strict contractual obligation. Beldam LJ emphasized that contributory negligence is not a defense in contract law, particularly where the claim is based on a strict contractual obligation rather than a tortious duty. He noted that contributory negligence might be relevant if the liability for breach of contract were equivalent to tortious liability, but that was not the case here.

Nourse LJ reinforced this view, stating that contract law allows defenses such as release, waiver, and forbearance, but contributory negligence does not apply. He highlighted that the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 was not intended to interfere with contract law principles. The court clarified that in strict contractual obligations, contributory negligence does not affect the damages awarded for a breach of contract.

Key Judicial Statement: Beldam LJ noted, "In the context of a breach of a strict contractual obligation, contributory negligence does not provide a defense or a means to reduce damages." This statement highlights the court's stance that contributory negligence is not applicable in contractual claims based on strict obligations.

💡 LevelUpLaw: Barclays Bank Ltd v Fairclough Building Ltd clarifies that contributory negligence cannot be used to reduce damages for breach of a strict contractual obligation. The case underscores that while contributory negligence is a recognized defense in tort law, it does not apply to strict contract claims where the obligations are clear and not contingent upon the parties' conduct in relation to each other. This decision reinforces the distinction between tortious and contractual liability, particularly in how damages are assessed.