Search

For Glendoe hydro-electric scheme in Scotland, the tunnelling contract was design–build. After a year, the tunnel collapsed, blocking a 71-m length, which necessitated construction of a by-pass tunnel. The responsibility for the collapse was examined in court and the findings were later appealed by a further three judges. The judge of the first case found that the cause of the failure was "erodible rock" and the other three judges agreed, but, it is argued, that there is evidence for a complex wedge failure at a scale larger than the geological mapping. It is considered that the Owner of the tunnel, Scottish Southern Electricity took on the risk by agreeing to a TBM-constructed, mostly unlined tunnel rather than a drill and blasted, fully lined tunnel as had been postulated at tender. The Contractor, Hochtief, constructed the tunnel and lined it in accordance with a Rock Excavation Classification design sheet that was agreed by all parties and approved by the Engineer. A clause, 'Option M' limited the responsibility of the Contractor "for defects in the works due to his design so far as he proves that he used reasonable skill and care to ensure that it complied with the works information". The question is posed as to whether or not the current judicial process may be an impediment to valid decision-making on responsibility for dealing with complex geotechnical problems. This paper suggests that these issues require a technical assessment and engineering judgement decision, rather than a legal opinion, adjudicated on the basis of opined contractual responsibility. Perhaps, an erudite technical panel deliberation rather than a judicial process should be given the final authority in such cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]