Following the specification was not enough: MT Højgaard v E.ON
A technical standard and a promised outcome can impose different obligations. The wind farm dispute in MT Højgaard v E.ON offers a practical way to organise contracts, design records and defect evidence before seeking advice about failed works.
When a compliant design still fails
A contractor may say that it followed the agreed industry standard. An owner may reply that the contract promised a functioning result. Neither statement should be evaluated in isolation. A useful first consultation starts with a map of the contractual documents and the precise performance that each one describes.
The judgment in context
MT Højgaard A/S v E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd [2017] UKSC 59 concerned failed offshore wind turbine foundations. The design complied with a technical standard containing an error, but the contract also incorporated a requirement concerning a 20-year life. The Supreme Court allowed E.ON's appeal and restored the first-instance order. Compliance with the standard did not remove the additional contractual obligation. The court examined the document hierarchy and the language of the technical requirements rather than treating one statement of reasonable skill and care as exhaustive. Read the official judgment, especially paragraphs 30–54.
The case concerns the particular bargain and failed foundations. It is not a promise that every construction defect produces strict liability.
Assemble a document map
Collect the signed agreement, employer's requirements, drawings, specifications, tender clarifications and later variations. Record which version was actually incorporated. If documents conflict, identify the apparent conflict and any precedence clause; leave the legal conclusion for advice. Include documents describing service life, output, capacity, maintenance and acceptance testing, not just a headline warranty.
Next, organise the engineering evidence independently. Record when a defect first appeared, what was observed, who inspected it and what changed afterwards. Keep dated photographs, test results and inspection reports in their original format. A later repair can remove evidence of the original condition, so ask about preservation before destructive work where circumstances permit.
Prepare a table distinguishing the alleged design problem from its effects. For example, identify the component, the specified performance, the observed shortfall and the practical consequence for operations. Attach repair estimates and explain whether they restore the original promise or improve the asset beyond it. Record urgent safety decisions and the professional advice supporting them.
Avoid the two opposite shortcuts
A standard's approval is not necessarily the whole contract. But an asset's failure is not, by itself, proof that a contractor guaranteed every aspect of its future performance. Maintenance, operation, variations and causation can matter. A legal review also needs to distinguish obligations of the designer, installer, supplier and inspector instead of grouping them together as one responsible party.
Make the consultation useful
Ask what the contract promised, which party made each promise and which technical questions require an independent expert. Discuss notice requirements, insurance notifications and evidence access promptly. Do not assume that a product warranty and a contractual damages claim have the same scope or time limits.
This article reviews a 2017 judgment. Current contracts and applicable rules require separate checking. LegalPath can help you browse public cases and lawyer profiles; your own contract and a clear technical chronology should lead the discussion.