The High Court has granted summary judgment against a contractor's claim to be indemnified for a £2.5 million injury settlement, holding the contract did not clearly cover loss arising from its own negligence.
Key facts
- Who: The parties to a subcontracting chain in which a facilities contractor sought to recover an injury settlement from a subcontractor under an indemnity clause
- From: Judgment date, 20 March 2026
- Source: James Alan Gambrill v NG Bailey Facilities Services Ltd [2026] EWHC 667 (KB)
Background
On 21 February 2023, James Gambrill was working at Marlowes Shopping Centre in Hemel Hempstead. While trying to change a light fitting in a roof space, he stood on fragile boxing, which collapsed. He fell at least 40 feet onto a concrete floor and suffered a spinal cord injury, leaving him paraplegic, and a traumatic brain injury.
NG Bailey Facilities Services Ltd (NGB) provided facilities management at the centre. It had subcontracted a light replacement project to Beauchamp & Bird Limited (B&B), which in turn subcontracted the work to Tekna Electrical Limited, Mr Gambrill's employer.
Mr Gambrill sued NGB and B&B in negligence. The central dispute was a conversation with NGB's Lead Engineer, Mr Kibble. Mr Gambrill said he was told he could change the fitting; NGB denied this. Two Tekna colleagues supported Mr Gambrill's account. In October 2025 the claims settled at mediation, with NGB paying £2.5 million plus costs without admitting liability.
The question
NGB then pursued B&B for its loss. In the High Court (DHCJ Guy Vassall-Adams KC, hearing on 2 March 2026), B&B sought to strike out or obtain summary judgment on NGB's contribution claim and its contractual indemnity claim under clause 3.8 of a Trade Framework Agreement. NGB sought permission to add a claim for breach of contract. The issue covered here is whether NGB could recover under the indemnity a settlement it paid without any finding of negligence.
The decision
The judge granted B&B summary judgment on the indemnity claim, finding it had no real prospect of success.
The reasoning
The court said the settlement could be treated as based on NGB's actual or contingent liability in negligence. It drew that inference from the context: only a negligence claim was brought, it turned on disputed evidence, other witnesses backed the claimant, litigation risk was acknowledged, and NGB paid a high sum. The loss therefore arose from NGB's own negligence.
Clause 3.8 made no reference to negligence. Following binding authority, including the Canada Steamship principles applied in Jose v MacSalvors Plant Hire Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1329, a party cannot pass on liability for its own negligence without clear and unequivocal wording. NGB's counsel accepted those principles applied. The judge rejected the argument that negligence must first be proved at trial or admitted, saying the court may look at all the circumstances of a settlement and draw an inference.
The judge declined to grant summary judgment on a separate argument that changing the light fitting was not part of B&B's activities, because he did not have the full evidential picture and could not conduct a mini trial.
What this means for businesses in subcontracting chains
The ruling shows how one court approached an indemnity clause that did not mention negligence. It held that such a clause did not allow a party to pass on liability for its own negligence.
It also shows that a settlement made without admitting liability did not stop the court from inferring, from the circumstances, that the loss arose from negligence. Each case turns on its own contract wording and facts.
Sources
- James Alan Gambrill v NG Bailey Facilities Services Ltd [2026] EWHC 667 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 20 March 2026