X-Ray & Diagnostic Ultrasound Consultants Limited (Appellant) v Arel Limited and others (Respondents) (Jamaica)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0072

Jurisdiction

Jamaica

Parties

Appellant(s)

X-RAY & DIAGNOSTIC ULTRASOUND CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Respondent(s)

Arel Limited

Sybil & Basil Julian Saint Christopher Nelson

Basil Nelson & Associates (Consulting Engineers) Limited

Issue

(1) Did the First Respondent owe a contractual or tortious ‘duty to warn’ the Appellant that the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system (the “HVAC system”) it was to install was incapable of achieving its intended purpose? (2) Did Mr Basil Nelson, represented by the Second Respondent, personally assume responsibility to the Appellant to take care in providing professional design services?

Facts

The Appellant, X-Ray & Diagnostic Ultrasound Consultants Limited (“X-Ray”), proposed to construct a nuclear laboratory in Jamaica. Because of the specialist cyclotron machine the laboratory was to house, it needed a ‘100% fresh air’ HVAC system to maintain the necessary pressure, temperature, and humidity levels (the “specifications”). X-Ray contracted with the Third Respondent, Basil Nelson & Associates (Consulting Engineers) Limited (“BNA”), to design the HVAC system. Mr Basil Nelson – now deceased and personally represented in these proceedings by the Second Respondent – was the managing director of BNA at the relevant time (“Mr Nelson”). X-Ray also contracted with the First Respondent, Arel Limited (“Arel”), to supply, install, and commission the BNA-designed HVAC system. Instead of recommending a ‘100% fresh air’ HVAC system, BNA proposed a ‘recirculated air’ system. Arel installed the system. This HVAC system failed to maintain the specifications. Therefore, X-Ray brought claims in contract and the tort of negligence against BNA and Mr Nelson for, in summary, negligently failing to design a system capable of maintaining the specifications; and Arel for, in essence, a negligent failure to warn X-Ray that the HVAC system it was installing was not capable of achieving the specifications. At trial, X-Ray succeeded in its claims against BNA and Arel, but its claim against Mr Nelson failed because Mr Nelson did not owe X-Ray a duty. On appeal, the Court of Appeal: allowed Arel’s appeal, holding that Arel’s duties did not include a duty to warn X-Ray that the system was defective; and dismissed X-Ray’s appeal that Mr Nelson had assumed personal responsibility to X-Ray to take care. X-Ray now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.