Staveley applied for a declaration that four contracts entered into with Odebrecht were construction contracts within the meaning of the Act. There was no material difference between the four subcontracts, which were for the design, engineering, procurement, supply, delivery to site, installation, testing and commissioning of instrumentation, fire and gas, electrical and telecommunications equipment. The equipment was for installation in steel structures, called modules, to be constructed in a yard adjacent to the River Tees and then transported to the Gulf of Mexico. Staveley argued that the modules fell within the definition of “Construction Operations” under Section 105(1)(c) of the HGCRA to include the “installation in any building or structure of fittings forming part of the land”, as they were to be attached to oil platforms and so would form part of the land.

The Judge held that the expression “forming part of the land” requires the fittings to form part of the land at least prospectively, if not immediately upon their installation. The significant issue therefore before the court was then whether or not the modules were to actually form part of the land, even prospectively. The Judge agreed that the use of the definite article “the land” referred to that land where the construction operation was carried out. Further, there was an intention to exclude offshore installations from the Act. In this case, the work did not fall within the Act as structures which are, or are to be, founded in the sea bed below low water mark are not structures forming, or to form, part of the land.