New Malden House developers sue engineer for delivery-up of designs etc–Engineer’s fear of being ‘pilloried’ as responsible for unsafe building without a judicial finding against him–Undertaking given by developers in response to judge’s observations–No publication of designs etc in any newspaper or magazine
This was a
claim by Central Commercial Properties Ltd, of Frederick’s Place, Old Jewry,
London EC2, against Gordon Rose, a structural engineer, of Heathgate, Golders
Green, London, for delivery-up of designs, schedules and calculations relating
to New Malden House, New Malden, Surrey, made by him while in the plaintiff
company’s employment, and for damages.
R Bernstein QC
and R Jacob (instructed by Forsyte, Kerman & Phillips) represented the
plaintiffs. The defendant appeared in person.
Opening the
case, Mr Bernstein said that New Malden House was an 11-storey office block
evacuated in 1975 and well known as an unsafe building. The plaintiffs had been
associated with Ravenseft Properties Ltd and City Centre Properties Ltd in the
development, and had employed the defendant as an engineer engaged on (inter
alia) the construction of the building. They sought delivery-up of the
documents produced by him as their servant acting in that behalf.
Mr Rose said
that he was very concerned about the possibility of adverse publicity in the
Press. The Sunday Times had already published an article about New
Malden House, and was understood to be keen to publish his plans.
His Lordship:
Mr Bernstein, Mr Rose does not want to be vilified and held up as the engineer
whose fault it was without any judicial finding on the matter. Could your
clients not give him an undertaking of no publicity? They can make this building safe with the
documents in their hands without putting Mr Rose in the pillory.
Mr Bernstein
said that wood wool had been used in the construction of New Malden House, and
the companies concerned had received many inquiries from people who had also
experienced difficulties with that material. They (the companies) felt they had
a public duty to pass on information.
His Lordship
said that the proposed undertaking need not prevent the companies from passing
on information at second hand.
After a short
adjournment, a settlement was announced. The defendant agreed that the three
companies were entitled to the designs, schedules and calculations concerned,
or copies thereof, on terms that they would not knowingly cause or permit them
to be published in any newspaper or magazine. The plaintiffs withdrew their
claim for damages for delay in handing over the documents, and made no
application for costs.
