Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The text of the judgment approved by His Honour Judge Humphrey LLoyd QC is as follows:
1.6 Mr Skilton, Mr Buckton and Mr Farrant met on 2 July 1997 and reached agreement on a number of matters. It is convenient now to set out parts of their agreement:
"1.2 The FlameBraker construction as detailed on Broadway Malyan's drawing 3133/A3/6 was inadequate for this purpose.
1.3 "FlameBraker construction" refers to the proprietary system of Supalux boarding, its supporting framework and fixing straps. It was never intended by the FlameBraker manufacturer that the construction as drawn should be used for the function of a compartment wall. Even when used for its intended function, it could only act as a fire wall with the fire on one side of the wall.
1.4 Where FlameBraker construction has a proven capability when used as intended by the manufacturer, when used as a compartment wall as shown, the FlameBraker construction does not meet the requirements of a 2 hour wall due to:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.