IN HER MAJESTYS COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Claim No. B00550519

Between:
MINING ALL Plc,
TRANSPORT CARE Ltd
and
MS. ANNE BROWN

APPELLANTS
-AND-

EQUIPMENT COMPLETE Ltd

RESPONDENT

SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT

(RESPONSE TO THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL)

INTRODUCTION
1. This skeleton argument is submitted on behalf of the respondent to support the
companys response to the appellants appeal against the decision of the High
Court.

BACKGROUND
2. The first named appellant seeks damages arising out of an incident concerning
the respondent on January 4th 2009, which resulted in the destruction of a
coalfield. At the relevant material time, the first named appellant held an
exploration licence in respect of a coalfield in Coalisland. The first named
appellant was not the legal owner of the site. Property rights were vested in the
appellants contractor, Big Rigs Plc. The contractor is not a party to this action.
3. The respondent was sub-contracted by the frist
4. The first named appellants case is that the respondent was negligent in
maintaining a helicopter, which crashed causing the total destruction of the
coalfield, and economic loss to the appellant, and that the respondent is liable
for damages in negligence pertaining to said loss.
 5. Quantum for the first named appellant is assessed to be 3,500,000,000 in
respect of the loss of the coalfield, 80,000,000 in respect of the exploration
licence, and 2,000,000 in respect of exploration costs.
6. The second named appellant also seeks damages arising out of the incident. At
the relevant material time, the appellant operated a fleet of heavy-duty
vehicles. These vehicles were destroyed in the incident of January 4th 2009.
7. The second named appellants case is that but for the respondents negligent
maintenance of the helicopter, the resulting explosion from the coalfield would
not have destroyed the appellants entire fleet of vehicles, and that the
respondent is liable for damages in negligence pertaining to the destruction of
the vehicles and economic loss arising from their destruction.
8. Quantum for the second name appellant is assessed to be 12,000,000 in
respect of the vehicles, and 7,000,000 in respect of the economic loss
suffered by the company.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES
9. In defence of this application, the respondent will rely upon the following
authorities:
a. Donoghue (or McAlister) v Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1
b. Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and Others [1990] UKHL 2
c. Corporation of Glasgow v Muir and Others [1943] 2 All ER 44
d. Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co. Ltd. [1983] 1 AC 520
e. Simpson & Co v Thompson (1877) 3 App Cas 279
f. Simaan General Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd (No. 2) [1998] 1
All ER 791
g. Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialties Ltd [1985] 3 All ER 705
h. Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1970] QB
27
i. Shell UK Ltd and others v Total UK Ltd and Another [2010] 3 All ER
793

THE ISSUES
10. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the appeal should be refused on
the following grounds:
a. The damage incurred by the first named appellant was that of pure
economic loss, as held by the learned judge in the decision of the High
 Court, and there was no duty owed by the respondent to take
reasonable care to prevent such damage. The maxim damnum absque
injuria applies to this damage, and it would be unfair in the
circumstances to impose such a duty.
b. Further, or in the alternative, it is common case that economic loss is
only recoverable if the claimant held some interest in the damaged
property. The first named appellant was not the legal owner of the
property, and even if held to be the equitable owner, a cause in action
could only arise if the legal owner were to become a party to this
action.
c. The damage incurred by the second named appellant