Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Related Content
CASE STUDY

“Because of the pure breadth and depth of black letter law research and practical guidance that LexisNexis provides, we don't have to rely on counsel as much as perhaps firms that don't use LexisNexis.”

KaurMaxwell

Access all documents on CCF

CCF meaning

Published by a LexisNexis Energy expert
What does CCF mean?
CCF (Common Cause Failure) describes, in practice, when two or more items of redundant plant or systems fail together because they are triggered by the same underlying cause, so that the intended redundancy is defeated. The term is not defined in UK or Irish primary legislation or case law; it is an engineering and functional safety concept widely used in regulatory guidance and industry standards (for example IEC 61508/61511 and sector standards), and appears in safety cases, contracts and expert evidence. Regulators (HSE, ONR and the HSA in Ireland) expect duty holders under COMAH/Seveso and other safety regimes to identify, model and reduce CCF risks so far as is reasonably practicable. Key features are: failure of multiple, nominally independent, redundant items; a common initiator (for example shared design defect, software bug, maintenance error, environmental event, common power or control). CCF is sometimes referred to as common mode failure. Typical legal relevance includes: safety case and risk assessment content; SIL/reliability modelling (for example beta‑factor methods); allocation of responsibility in EPC/O&M contracts, warranties and fitness-for-purpose obligations; causation and product liability; and insurance placement and claims (single event/aggregation). Usage and legal significance are broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about CCF

NEWS
Negligent misstatement: no assumption of responsibility to undisclosed principal for bank reference—Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Playboy Club v Banco Nazionale del Lavoro

Practical implications This judgment reinforces the established approach in the authorities for identifying when a duty of care can arise in cases of negligent misstatement. It emphasises the need to show a special relationship between the author of the statement and the person relying upon it, captured by the assumption of responsibility test. If such a relationship is absent, the analysis must then address whether loss was foreseeable, the closeness of the parties’ relationship, and, ultimately, whether imposing a duty would be fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances. The authorities in Hedley Byrne, Caparo and Customs and Excise Commissioner were each approved. For further guidance on negligent misstatement, see Practice Notes: Negligent misstatement—founding a claim Negligent misstatement—defences and remedies How did the negligent misstatement issues arise in this case? The club engaged Burlington to obtain references for potential players at the club. Burlington’s involvement was to preserve confidentiality for customers who wished to keep their gaming activities private. Mr Barakat...

Read More Right Arrow