Vibixa Ltd v Komori UK Ltd & Others - Court of Appeal,
9 May 2006
Vibixa sought damages for damaged property and loss of profit
resulting from fires in their premises. Between June 1999 and
October 2002 three printing presses were destroyed by fire which
also did other significant damage. It was alleged that the fires
were caused by a defective type of printing machinery containing a
dryer supplied by Komori. Significantly the claims were for damages
relating to financial loss. It was accepted that the health or
safety of individuals were not put at risk by any of the fires.
Vibixa claimed damages in breach of duty in contract and tort
(reparation). They also sought damages for breach of statutory duty
under the Health & Safety at Work Act, 1974. Komori were able
to persuade the Judge to strike out the claims under the 1974 Act.
Vibixa appealed. It was suggested by Vibixa that the Supply of
Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992, which had been made interims
of the 1974 Act to bring into force the Machinery Directive should
be interpreted to give a remedy to persons to whom machinery is
supplied by giving an express statutory right of action against
suppliers.
Lady Justice Arden giving the judgement of the Court of Appeal
held that the interpretation of both the Machinery Directive and
the resulting Machinery Regulations did not provide remedies for
the purchasers of machinery against suppliers of defective
machinery. Any reference to property covered the personal property
of persons injured, whether they were workers or others, such as
people walking past or visiting a factory when a fire occurred.
It was decided that it was not necessary to give the Machinery
Directive a construction which would provide remedies for the
purchasers of machinery against suppliers of the defective
machinery especially where the domestic law already provided for a
number of remedies. Indeed it was strange that Vibixa had pursued
the Machinery Regulations and 1974 Act route rather than other
product legislation. The Court decided that it had also been open
to Vibixa to protect itself by contract.
The Court also considered the wider question of whether health
and safety regulations can be made under the 1974 Act to convey a
right of action on an employer for property damage. The Court was
not concerned with incidental property damage suffered by a person
who suffers a personal injury because that sort of damage is likely
to be within the scope of the duty which is owed by an employer
under health and safety regulations.
Vibixa had a wider argument that the 1974 Act could make
regulations for the purpose of protecting an employer against
damage to a property or financial loss which he incurs as a result
of a matter which is the subject of health and safety regulations.
The argument was that regulations made under the 1974 Act could be
interpreted to extend beyond the sphere of safety of individuals
into the economic activities of contracting businesses. That
argument was rejected. The general purposes of the 1974 Act were
for the health, safety and welfare of employees. They did not
extend to the protection of the property or economic interests of
the employer. The 1974 Act therefore cannot form the basis of a
claim for the recovery of damage to property or financial loss,
other than occurring incidentally to an injured person.