On 21 February 2023, Mr Gambrill suffered a tragic accident while working at Marlowes Shopping Centre in Hemel Hempstead. While he was attempting to change a light fitting on the ceiling of a roof space, he climbed onto some fragile ductwork that collapsed under his weight. Mr Gambrill fell approximately 90 feet onto the concrete floor of a car park below.

Mr Gambrill brought claims against (1) NG Bailey (the facilities management contractor whose Lead Engineer was alleged to have negligently instructed him to change the light fitting) and (2) Beauchamp & Bird (the contractor that had been engaged to replace light fittings at the shopping centre). The pleaded value of the claim brought by Mr Gambrill was approximately £11 million.

In turn, NG Bailey brought claims for contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 as well as for a contractual indemnity on the basis that it had agreed to “indemnify NG Bailey against any claims or proceedings in respect of loss, damage or injury arising from its activities” .

Joshua Hedgman acted for Beauchamp & Bird in successfully defending all of the claims that were brought against it.

At a mediation, Mr Gambrill was persuaded to discontinue his claims against Beauchamp & Bird. Fundamentally, Mr Gambrill was not employed by Beauchamp & Bird which meant that it did not owe him any duty of care. Mr Gambrill did reach an open settlement with NG Bailey.

That left the claims for contribution and indemnity, in respect of which Beauchamp & Bird applied for strike out or alternatively summary judgment. NG Bailey cross-applied for permission to amend its claim to include new claims for breach of contract and a partial indemnity.

On 20 March 2026, the applications were heard by Guy Vassall-Adams KC, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court. The Court refused NG Bailey’s applications to amend its claim and acceded to Beauchamp & Bird’s application for strike out/summary judgment of its existing claims.

There are a number of matters arising from the Judgment that are worth noting.

First, the claim for a contractual indemnity was dismissed on the basis that, on its proper construction, the indemnity could not extend to damage that was caused by NG Bailey’s own negligence. To that extent, the Court applied the well-known principle that it requires clear and express language to construe an indemnity as covering the negligent actions of the party claiming the indemnity.

Perhaps more interestingly, the Court was prepared to infer that the settlement was a product of NG Bailey’s negligence or, at the very least, the substantial prospect that it would be found negligent – even though it was entered expressly without any admission of liability. In that respect, it was material that Mr Gambrill had only ever sued NG Bailey in negligence and that it would otherwise have been a volunteer to a gratuitous liability if the settlement was not the result of its own negligence.

Second, the amendments were refused on the basis that the application was made late such that the hearing was taking place only six weeks before trial. The Judgment provides a salutary reminder of the perils associated with delaying in an application to introduce new claims to proceedings.

Third, the amendments were in any event refused on the basis that they had no merit. In the author’s experience, the need to scrutinise the merits of a proposed amendment is often overlooked at the permission hearing.

The Court accepted Joshua’s submission that none of the alleged breaches of contract could be causative of the damage in light of NG Bailey’s own negligence. In this case, even if Beauchamp & Bird was contractually obliged to provide a supervisor, the fact it did not do so could only ever have been the occasion for NG Bailey’s Lead Engineer to step in and direct Mr Gambrill about his duties.

Turning to the partial indemnity, the Court accepted Joshua’s submission that Beauchamp & Bird did not owe any concurrent duty in tort such that there could be no apportionment under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. Further, the contractual indemnity could not be construed in terms that were either partial or permissive of an apportionment in contract. The indemnity was ‘all or nothing’. In this case, it allowed NG Bailey nothing in light of the Court’s findings that it did not cover damage caused by its own negligence.

The full Judgment is reported as Gambrill v NG Bailey Facilities Services Ltd & Beauchamp & Bird Ltd [2026] EWHC 667 (KB) and is available here.

 

Joshua is a leading junior who specialises in defending catastrophic personal injury claims. He is particularly sought after in cases that involve complex duty and causation arguments as well as those requiring a forensic approach to the construction of contractual terms and indemnities.

Joshua was instructed by Thom Lumley and Elinor Sidwell of RPC LLP.