The legal battle between Tilbury Douglas and Arup ends with Tilbury Douglas’s claim being dismissed in court. The £6m claim concerned alleged defective designs at an Edinburgh development site. The court ruled the claim was filed too late, upholding Arup’s design assurances. Tilbury Douglas accused Arup of negligent engineering practices. The court emphasised Tilbury Douglas’s lack of timely diligence.
In a significant legal conclusion, the Court of Session has rejected Tilbury Douglas’s £6 million claim against engineering firm Arup. The claim revolved around alleged defective designs at the redevelopment of the former Haymarket railway yard in Edinburgh. Tilbury Douglas alleged that Arup’s designs for the site’s enabling works were “incapable of implementation,” leading to unnecessary delays and expenses.
Tilbury Douglas, formerly Interserve, began its joint venture with Tiger Developments in 2012, overseeing the project’s enabling works which involved intricate civil and structural engineering challenges. Arup was tasked with providing designs meant to stabilise the northern tunnel through reinforcement, a critical task misjudged, according to Tilbury Douglas.
Bam Nuttall, contracted to execute these enabling works, soon voiced safety concerns about portions of the brickwork. Subsequent investigations by both Bam and Arup themselves indicated necessary tunnel brickwork repairs, including comprehensive grouting and addressing voids.
Tilbury Douglas criticised Arup for failing to account for the tunnel lining’s voids, asserting that inadequate design provisions led to unplanned repairs and substantial project delays. By mid-2014, the project experienced a six-week postponement and additional costs exceeding £1 million, attributed to Arup’s “erroneous assumptions” regarding site conditions.
The legal claim, initiated in July 2019, was eventually deemed inadmissible due to its late submission. Initially, a court allowed the progression of the claim under the belief that assurances from Arup influenced the delayed registration. However, a subsequent ruling by Lord Malcolm refuted this basis, indicating that Arup merely “expressed confidence” in their design.
Lord Malcolm’s ruling highlighted the absence of evidence proving an error on Arup’s part that could have been mitigated through reasonable diligence by Tilbury Douglas. His judgment suggested that Tilbury Douglas was adequately positioned to challenge Arup’s design assurances sooner but failed to exercise due diligence and scrutiny.
The court’s decision underscores the importance of timely and diligent action in contractual disputes, closing this expensive chapter for Tilbury Douglas.
