Gambrill v NG Bailey: indemnity clauses, causation, and the cost of late amendments

In a judgement handed down on 20 March 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC dismissed the bulk of NG Bailey Facilities Services Ltd's additional claims against subcontractor Beauchamp & Bird Limited, arising from a catastrophic workplace accident at Marlowes Shopping Centre in Hemel Hempstead.

The claimant, James Gambrill, suffered a spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury in February 2023 after falling roughly 40 feet through ducting onto a concrete floor below. He had been attempting to change a ceiling light fitting when the boxing he was standing on gave way. Gambrill was employed by Tekna Electrical Limited, which had been engaged by Beauchamp & Bird (B&B), itself a subcontractor to NG Bailey (NGB). NGB settled Gambrill's negligence claim for £2.5 million plus costs in October 2025, without admission of liability, and then sought to recover that sum from B&B.

Contribution under the 1978 Act

NGB's claim for contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 was advanced on the basis that B&B was Gambrill's employer, or at least his de facto employer. The argument collapsed entirely on the facts. Evidence from Gambrill himself, from B&B's director, and from NGB's own documentation consistently identified Tekna — not B&B — as Gambrill's employer. NGB led no evidence capable of establishing any legal relationship between Gambrill and B&B. At the hearing, NGB's leading counsel, Derek O'Sullivan KC, realistically conceded the point. Summary judgement was granted to B&B accordingly.

The contractual indemnity: negligence and the Canada Steamship principles

NGB's indemnity claim under clause 3.8 of the Trade Framework Agreement — which required B&B to indemnify NGB "against any claims or proceedings in respect of loss, damage or injury arising from its activities" — presented a more nuanced question. The central issue was whether, in the absence of any admission of liability, a court could properly infer that NGB's settlement with Gambrill reflected its own negligence, and if so, whether clause 3.8 extended to cover losses arising from NGB's own negligent acts.

The judge held that the context was clear. Gambrill had brought only a negligence claim. Its resolution turned on a disputed conversation between Gambrill and NGB's lead engineer, Alastair Kibble, which three witnesses supported from Gambrill's side. NGB's own documents described the litigation risk as a factor in its decision to settle. On that basis, the court was prepared to infer that NGB had settled on account of its own negligence, or at the very least the substantial prospect of a finding to that effect.

Applying the Canada Steamship principles — as affirmed in Jose v MacSalvors Plant Hire Ltd [2009] — the judge found that clause 3.8 contained no express reference to NGB's negligence, and the words were wide enough to cover other bases of liability. NGB could not therefore use the clause to pass its own negligence onto B&B. Summary judgement was granted on this issue too.

NGB's attempt to plead a partial indemnity fared no better. Following Forsikrings Vesta v Butcher [1986] and Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd v Essex Group Services Ltd [2014], the court confirmed that apportionment under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 is only available where there are concurrent duties in contract and tort. The relationship between NGB and B&B was purely contractual. This was an all-or-nothing case.

The amendment application: a cautionary tale on delay

NGB's application to introduce a new breach of contract claim — running to 25 pages against the original six-page pleading — was dismissed as too late. The trial was six weeks away. The proposed claim focused on B&B's alleged failure to ensure compliance with health and safety legislation under clause 2.10 of the framework agreement, including inadequate supervision of Gambrill.

The judge was unconvinced by NGB's explanation that the need for this claim only became apparent in July 2025, following service of a witness statement from B&B's director. On the judge's analysis, NGB had known from the night of the accident itself that Gambrill was a Tekna employee. It had a witness statement from its own engineer, Kibble, to the same effect by February 2024, two months before it filed its original additional claim. The impetus for the amendment, the court found, was plainly B&B's October 2025 summary judgement application — not any genuine revelation in July.

Even setting aside the question of lateness, the court doubted whether the causation element of the new claim had real prospects. Relying on Quinn v Burch Bros [1966], the judge reasoned that any breach by B&B in failing to supervise created the occasion for Kibble's alleged instruction to Gambrill — it did not cause it. NGB's own negligence, in the form of Kibble's conduct, broke the chain.

The overall result leaves NGB bearing the full cost of the £2.5 million settlement, with its additional claims against B&B dismissed or refused. The trial, listed for April 2026, is to proceed on whatever residual issues remain.

Copyright & permissions