Image: Wikimedia Commons
A legal claim by the company that operates Swansea’s Liberty Stadium against Interserve and owner Swansea Council over alleged defects discovered after its construction has been dismissed.
Swansea Stadium Management Company (SSMC) originally began seeking £1.3m in damages on 4 April 2017.
A number of spectators slipped in wet conditions at the stadium, leading SSMC to undertake work to improve the slip resistance of the flooring in 2009 at its own expense.
Meanwhile, problems with discolouration, rust and ultimately delamination of the coatings were attended to on a number of occasions by Interserve’s specialist subcontractors, but by the time of its claim, SSMC alleged that the remedial works were not effective.
Nonetheless, on 26 May 2011, Gardiner & Theobald issued a notice of completion of making good defects, confirming in accordance with clause 16.4 of the building contract that the defects the council had highlighted had been made good as of 14 April 2011.
SSMC lodged two claims against Interserve: firstly that the design and construction of the concourse flooring at the stadium and the supply, construction and painting of the steelwork were defective; and secondly that the contractor failed to identify and rectify the flooring and/or paintwork defects, as required under clause 16 of its contractual obligations.
Interserve defence
In its defence in November 2017, Interserve argued that the claims were time barred because the claim came four days after the 12-year anniversary of the date of completion (on 31 March 2005) and applied to have the claims struck out.
In a judgement issued following a hearing in June 2018, Mrs Justice O’Farrrell ruled that SSMC could not proceed with its claim that the design and construction of the stadium were defective.
However, she said that the stadium operator could continue with the second part of its claim, namely that Interserve allegedly failed to identify and rectify the flooring and/or paintwork defects.
But Mr Justice Pepperall’s judgement on the second part of the claim dismissed SSMC’s claim against both Interserve and the council.
He ruled that SSMC had failed to prove that the council failed to take all reasonable steps to enforce its rights under the building contract in respect of the paintwork defects. He also ruled that that the defects SSMC complained of following Interserve’s remedial works could not be proven to be latent defects.
Responding to the decision, Interserve said it welcomed Justice Pepperall’s decision in favour of Swansea Council and Interserve Construction.
