Independent Broadcasting Authority v EMI Electronics (1980) 14 Build LR 1
Contract – Negligence – Failure to consider risks – misstatement
Facts:
BICC designed a television mast for the predecessors of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA). After experiencing problems with a similar mast, IBA sought assurance from BICC that the mast met the specifications and would not break. They suggested conducting tests, but BICC insisted that the mast would be fine and no tests were needed. Consequently, no tests were undertaken and the building of the mast went ahead as planned. BICC contracted EMI to build the mast. The mast was built and then collapsed three years later, the problem being asymmetrical icing stays. IBA brought a claim in negligence against EMI and BICC.
Issues:
Whether EMI owed a contractual duty to IBA by assuming design liability from BICC in building the faulty mast. Whether BICC could also be held liable for the negligent build.
Held:
BICC was found to be negligent in the design of the mast. Their assurance to IBA also amounted to misstatement (which they had written in a letter before the mask was built). However, BICC did not build the mast and had no contract for the build, therefore they could not be found negligent for damages in relation to the build. Their negligence did extend to the fact that they had failed to identify the risk of having asymmetrical icing stays but they could only be liable in tort. On proper construction of the contract, EMI were liable for the negligent build.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary broadly reflects the decision of the House of Lords in IBA v EMI Electronics and BICC Construction Ltd (1980) 14 BLR 1, and the core legal principles described remain good law. The case continues to be cited as authority for several important propositions: that a contractor who takes on responsibility for design as well as construction may assume design liability; that a negligent misstatement made in a letter can found liability in tort; and that liability in tort for negligent design can exist independently of a building contract.
However, readers should note a few points. First, the article conflates BICC’s role slightly: it was BICC Construction Ltd (a subsidiary), not BICC plc directly, that was the relevant party in the proceedings, and the structural relationship between the defendants is worth checking in the full report. Second, the article’s description of the negligent misstatement point is compressed; the House of Lords confirmed liability under the Hedley Byrne principle for the written assurance given by BICC. Third, the tortious duty of care principles relevant to this case have continued to develop through subsequent case law, most notably Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398, which significantly restricted recovery in tort for pure economic loss caused by defective structures. Readers should be aware that the interaction between IBA v EMI and Murphy has been a subject of academic and judicial commentary; IBA v EMI was decided before Murphy and some aspects of the tortious reasoning must be read in light of that later authority. Overall the case remains a valid and frequently cited authority in construction law, but it should not be read in isolation from subsequent developments in negligence and economic loss.
