When bespoke, charcoal grey, carpet tiles laid in a Swiss bank’s swish offices turned an unsightly shade of green when exposed to sunlight, the mishap triggered a spate of colourful – and costly – litigation.
Company A, which had dyed the fading yarn, had paid £575,000 to one of its clients who had replaced the carpet tiles after the bank complained. Company A had then launched proceedings to recover its money from company B, which had supplied a particular red dye which was said to be the source of the problem.
Company A argued that the dye was not of satisfactory quality and that its tendency to fade in sunlight amounted to a breach of contract. It subsequently sought to amend the proceedings to also allege that it had relied upon company B’s technical expertise and that the latter had been negligent.
Company B submitted that the latter claim had been brought too late and that the amendment should not be permitted. However, in allowing company A to pursue its negligence claim, the High Court found that the allegation arose from substantially the same facts as the claim originally pleaded.