← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case construction interpretationexpress termsimplied terms

MT Hojgaard A/S v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd

[2017] UKSC 59
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2017
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Where a contract contains inconsistent terms as to design liability, a higher fitness-for-purpose obligation can prevail over a reasonable skill and care standard depending on proper construction.

Key Principle

design liability; fitness for purpose vs reasonable skill and care; reconciling inconsistent contract terms

Area of Law

construction

Related Cases

KONE Elevator (HK) Ltd v Construction Industry Council [2026] HKCA 115

Court of Appeal affirmed the validity of a statutory levy imposed by the Construction Industry Council for lift and escalator maintenance works.

Hip Hing Construction Company Limited v Hong Kong Airlines Ltd [2024] HKCFI 370

Judicial determination required to assess the extent to which retention monies may be withheld under construction contracts.

Kone Elevator (HK) Ltd v Construction Industry Council [2023] HKDC 1216

Court interpreted Part 5 of the Construction Industry Council Ordinance in a construction industry regulatory dispute.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of MT Hojgaard A/S v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain MT Hojgaard A/S v E.ON Climate...