What the £5 Million Mace vs Mitie Fire Damper Case Teaches Us
A high-profile legal battle has erupted between two of the UK’s biggest construction firms after Mace launched a £5m claim against Mitie, over alleged fire safety failings at Primark’s record-breaking Birmingham megastore.
The dispute centres on the installation of 132 fire dampers. A fire damper is a mechanical or intumescent device, installed within a duct or ventilation opening, at the point in which it passes through an internal fire-resistant wall. The fire damper operates in the event of fire and is designed to resist its spread. The default position of a fire damper is open, allowing air to flow freely; however, it will close automatically in the event of fire to form a barrier. This barrier prevents or delays the fire from progressing from one fire compartment into the next. Mace claims that these 132 fire dampers were not fitted in line with building regulations, industry standards or Mitie’s contractual obligations.
Background to the Dispute
Mace was appointed by Primark in 2017 to deliver the shell, core and fit-out for what became the world’s largest fashion retail store on Birmingham High Street, officially recognised by Guinness World Records.
Mitie was engaged as a subcontractor on the project to install and commission the mechanical and ventilation systems, including the fire dampers.
However, according to Construction News, whose editorial team has seen the relevant court documents, Mace alleges that multiple issues were discovered with the damper installations. These include missing dampers, incorrect fixing joints, dampers installed in inaccessible areas, and all 62 dampers on protected escape routes lacking smoke rating certification.
Mace’s Allegations
Mace argues that Mitie failed to exercise reasonable skill and care and did not comply with industry standards or the specific requirements of the contract. The main contractor says it has had to commission extensive surveys and remedial work, adding that the defects could require “wholesale remedial works” across the building’s systems — works that must be carefully scheduled around the operational needs of the busy retail store.
According to Mace’s claim:
- Five dampers were not installed at all.
- 62 dampers on escape routes were not smoke rated.
- 29 dampers were rated incorrectly or used in ducts larger than those tested.
- 81 dampers were installed and tested in the wrong direction.
- Incorrect fixings were used on at least 88 dampers.
- 19 were installed in inaccessible areas.
- 80 could not be verified as compliant with manufacturers’ instructions.
The contractor further alleges that Mitie failed to provide complete operation and maintenance (O&M) documentation, with only one of the three damper types referenced in the paperwork and that particular model being the least used in the building.
Mace is seeking around £4m for remedial works, £110,000 in survey costs, and an additional £1m for wasted management time, as well as any compensation payable to Primark should the store need to close during the repairs.
Legal Context
Mace’s claim is brought under a collateral warranty through which Mitie allegedly undertook liability for the reasonable cost of repair, renewal or reinstatement. The main contractor emphasised that the case relates solely to fire dampers and ductwork and does not seek to revisit an earlier adjudication between the firms in May concerning the store’s smoke extract systems.
At the time of writing, Mitie has not yet filed a defence.
Industry Implications and the Lessons We Can Learn
Clearly, accurate recording and reporting of work such as the installation of fire dampers is essential. Had the records been sufficiently robust, the absence of five fire dampers should have been immediately obvious – before the work was signed off. The documentation should have included accurate drawings of the ventilation system and photographic evidence of each fire damper’s installation. Records not only help facilities managers to maintain their assets in future; they also help to protect installers from this sort of legal action – robust evidence of compliance is vital.
This dispute also serves to highlight the fact that fire damper installation – like function testing and maintenance work – is a highly skilled specialist task. It takes expertise, knowledge and experience to install fire dampers correctly and in the correct positions. This is not a commission to be undertaken by the inexperienced.
How the £5m Dispute Highlights Fire Damper Compliance Risks
When selecting an installer, you should make sure that the technicians actually completing the work are competent and experienced enough to carry out the work.
We believe that the time has come to put fire damper installation testing on a similar footing to ventilation cleaning. Currently, the BESA (Building Engineering Services Association) recommends using only members of it Vent Hygiene Register to carry out ventilation ductwork or kitchen extract cleaning. A similar register for competent fire damper installers and testers would help to raise standards of competence and professionalism across the industry.
Membership of such a register, with an increase in training and a formal measurement of competence would also serve to add reassurance to the commissioner – and their insurance provider – for fire damper projects.
Overall, for contractors, M&E specialists and facilities managers alike, the dispute serves as a reminder of the importance of adequate training and competence, robust testing, certification, and record-keeping – especially in high-profile public and retail environments.
Ensure Your Fire Dampers Are Fully Compliant
If you’re unsure whether your fire dampers have been correctly installed, tested, or maintained, don’t leave it to chance. Speak to Swift Fire Compliance today for expert advice, nationwide support, and complete peace of mind that your building is fully compliant and protected
