- Project plans
- Project activities
- Legislation and standards
- Industry context
- Specialist wikis
Last edited 06 Nov 2020
MT Høgjaard A/S v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited and others
Absolute obligations are obligations requiring performance to a certain standard, and nothing but full performance will discharge that obligation. Reasonable skill and care is the common law standard by which professionals are expected to discharge their obligations. The two do not always happily co-exist and it is important to check your contract to ensure professional obligations are qualified to the standard of reasonable skill and care to comply with the terms of your professional indemnity insurance (PII) policy and that you do not inadvertently agree to perform obligations to an absolute standard. You can expect certain obligations to be absolute, for example, the requirement to maintain PII cover or grant a copyright licence.
The recent case of MT Højgaard and E.ON demonstrates the co-existence of the two standards in a contract and how the presence of absolute obligations can lead to severe consequences for the unsuspecting.
MT Højgaard (MTH), the claimant contractor, entered into an agreement with the defendant employers E.ON Climate and Renewables (EON) for the design, fabrication and installation of the foundations for wind turbine generators for an offshore wind farm in Scotland.
MTH’s contract included the following:
“8.1 GENERAL OBLIGATIONS
(iv) So that the design of the Works and the Works when completed by the Contractor shall be wholly in accordance with this Agreement and shall satisfy any performance specifications or requirements of the Employer as set out in this Agreement...”
The employer’s requirements (3.2.2) stated:
The judge found MTH liable due to a breach of the fitness for purpose obligation clearly contained in its contract, namely that MTH warranted the foundations would have a service life of 20 years. MTH had relied on an erroneous standard for the design of the foundations but due to the fitness for purpose guarantee it gave, it still had to deliver the design it guaranteed regardless of the error.
The court provided guidance on errors in specifications in that defects caused by an employer’s specification are not the contractor’s responsibility unless the contractor expressly guarantees the construction to be fit for a specific purpose.
Therefore because MTH had assumed a full design responsibility by providing a fitness for purpose warranty it could not escape liability despite the existence reasonable skill and care obligations in the same contract. The judge noted that construction contracts typically contain both reasonable skill and care and absolute obligations and here the two obligations were not incompatible.
The moral of this case must be to approach absolute obligations with caution, to be aware of and qualify them where possible. Otherwise the risk of performance to a higher standard must be accepted and priced, but beware any adverse consequences for your PII cover.
This article was created by --Najma Dunnett 10:47, 1 June 2014 (BST)
 Find out more.
 Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
- 199 Knightsbridge Development Ltd v WSP UK Ltd.
- Employer's requirements.
- Fit for purpose.
- Professional Indemnity Insurance.
- Reasonable skill and care.
- Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors.
 External references
- BAILII, decision in full. MT Høgjaard A/S and E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited and others (2014) EWHC 1088 (TCC).
Featured articles and news
What will it take to stop it ?
To celebrate world bee day 2022 !
Not forgetting part F and the new part overheating part O.
As energy prices jump up in cost.
With people in the UK from Ukraine.
Industry leader Steve Murray takes on role.
An abundant and versatile building material.
600,000 heat pump installations targeted per year by 2028.
Helping prevent those unwanted outcomes.
How has transport changed due to Covid-19 ?
Will you need it ? after June 15 and the new Part O ?
Create an account and write the first of many articles.
CIAT commentary after the first meeting.
Who is to blame?
Research recommends focussing on portfolio success rather than project success.
The revised standard for mapping underground utilities.
Cross-industry steering group seeks support in delivery.