Norwich CC v Harvey [1989] 1 All ER 1180

Norwich (N) contracted with X for X to extend a swimming pool, including a clause that the risk of fire was purely N’s risk. X subcontracted to Harvey (H) whose negligence caused a fire and damage.

N tried to bring a tortious claim against H.

CA rejected the claim since there was no duty of care: there was no proximity (WHAT? Surely if you are working on someone’s house you should have the owners in contemplation) and it wouldn’t be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty in this scenario.

The mere absence of privity of contract did not make it fair, just etc. to impose a duty.

In fact the exemption clauses of the main contract could be relied on by them because Plaintiff had accepted the risk of fire lay with them, regardless of whether or not negligence had caused it.