JCT Clause 6.5.1 (historically known under earlier contract editions as Clause 21.2.1) relates to specialist project insurance designed to cover expense, liability, loss, claims, or proceedings arising from physical damage to neighbouring property caused by carrying out the works where there is no actionable negligence.
When groundwork, piling, basement construction, or demolition operations take place adjacent to existing structures, unexpected ground movement can occur even when works follow engineering specifications. Understanding how Clause 6.5.1 is selected, structured, and passed down through JCT subcontracts is vital for trade specialists looking to manage potential commercial exposure.
What Risks Does JCT Clause 6.5.1 Address?
Where specified in the Contract Particulars, Clause 6.5.1 requires insurance in joint names to cover expense, liability, loss, claims, or proceedings resulting from damage to adjoining property caused by:
- Collapse, subsidence, or heave of adjoining land or structures;
- Vibration arising from plant, piling, or demolition activities;
- Weakening or removal of support during underpinning, bulk excavations, or temporary works; and
- Lowering of groundwater through de-watering operations.
Public Liability Coverage and Non-Negligent Damage
A common point of confusion in commercial subcontracting concerns the boundary between standard Public Liability (PL) insurance and Clause 6.5.1 non-negligence cover.
Standard Public Liability policies are generally framed around legal liability at common law, ordinarily requiring an underlying breach of duty, tortious act, or negligence. If a trade contractor executes work strictly to approved designs without error, negligence may not be established. Depending on the precise policy wording and insuring clauses, a standard PL policy may not respond to third-party claims if liability does not stem from proven negligence.
Clause 6.5.1 provides a dedicated contractual mechanism to secure joint-names insurance for these specific perils, establishing defined coverage irrespective of fault where works cause physical movement to neighbouring land or buildings.
Contractual Origins: Gold v Patman & Fotheringham Ltd
The historical origin of Clause 6.5.1 traces back to the Court of Appeal decision in Gold v Patman & Fotheringham Ltd [1958]. The dispute examined whether the contractor had an enforceable contractual duty to take out insurance against liability for injury or damage to adjoining properties where no negligence occurred.
The case highlighted the practical need for clear, express contractual mechanisms when dealing with property damage risks that arise without negligence. In response, modern standard forms such as the JCT suite introduced specific optional clauses permitting parties to explicitly identify whether joint-names insurance must be maintained, who places it, and the required limits of indemnity.
How Clause 6.5.1 Operates in Practice
Insurance provisions across the JCT suite vary depending on the chosen contract family and the entries agreed in the Contract Particulars:
- It is an Optional Requirement: Clause 6.5.1 insurance is not automatically triggered in every contract. It only applies if expressly selected and completed in the relevant Contract Particulars.
- Form and Upstream Dependency: In standard JCT subcontracts (such as DBSub/C), the insurance requirements generally reflect the arrangements made under the head contract. If the Employer and Main Contractor have not activated the clause upstream, it will not operate downstream as an unamended standard term.
- Bespoke Subcontract Amendments: While standard forms set out balanced options, main contractors frequently insert bespoke amendments into trade subcontracts. These may attempt to shift the duty to procure the policy, pass on the premium cost, or transfer high policy excesses down to trade contractors without providing the underlying joint-names cover.
Verify Your Subcontract Particulars Before Mobilising
If a main contractor amends the subcontract particulars to pass down Clause 6.5.1 procurement duties or high policy excesses, your business could carry unforeseen financial exposure. You can verify your contract particulars, time-bars, and insurance terms using the diagnostic tools at Trade Contracts Simplified.
Check Subcontract Insurance Terms at Trade Contracts Simplified →Frequently Asked Questions
Does standard Public Liability cover Clause 6.5.1 risks?
Coverage depends entirely on your specific policy wording. However, many standard Public Liability policies require proof of legal negligence to trigger an indemnity. Clause 6.5.1 exists specifically to address situations where physical damage occurs to adjoining property without negligence.
Who is responsible for placing Clause 6.5.1 insurance?
Under standard, unamended JCT contract options, Clause 6.5.1 is typically arranged in the joint names of the Employer and the Contractor. Responsibility for placing and funding the cover depends on the entries made in the Contract Particulars and any agreed bespoke amendments.