MT Hojgaard A/S (Respondent) v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and another (Appellants)
Citation:  UKSC 59 BLR 477
The Supreme Court has held that a ‘fitness for purpose’ obligation contained within a schedule to a construction contract was to be given its natural effect and that it was not inconsistent with the other terms of the contract. The ruling sets aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and restores an earlier judgment of the Technology and Construction Court, which held that the fitness for purpose obligation required the contractor to achieve a result, namely that the foundations would last for 20 years. The case affirms the position that the courts are generally inclined to give full effect to a requirement that a product complies with the contractual criteria.
John Marrin QC and Paul Buckingham acted for the successful appellants (E.ON) (instructed by Gowling WLG).