Laing O’rourke Delivery Limited v Sweett (UK) Limited
[2024] EWHC 1088 (TCC)
Halsion Limited v St Thomas Street Development Limited
8 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2045 (TCC)
High Court
Halsion sued to get back money they paid after losing a construction dispute. The judge said their legal documents were too messy and confusing, so they have to rewrite them properly before the case can continue.
Key Facts
- •Halsion Ltd (Claimant) acted as M&E contractor for St Thomas Street Development Ltd (Defendant) on the Shard Place project.
- •A generator supplied by Halsion was inadequately sized, leading to a dispute.
- •Two adjudications awarded STSD damages (£1,934,732.11 paid by Halsion).
- •Halsion claims the adjudicator was wrong and seeks repayment, based on contractual interpretation, rectification, or estoppel.
- •STSD applied for summary judgment and to strike out Halsion's Particulars of Claim for non-compliance with CPR and the TCC Guide.
Legal Principles
Adjudicator's decision is binding until final determination, unless payment exceeded substantive legal rights.
s.108(1) Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, paragraph 23 of Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts, SI 1998 No 649, Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Ltd [2015] UKSC 38
Statements of case must be concise, plead only material facts, not evidence or arguments.
CPR 16.4(1)(a), PD16, Hague Plant Ltd v Hague [2014] EWCA Civ 1609, Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2015] EWHC 405 (Comm), Grove Park Properties v Royal Bank of Scotland [2018] EWHC 3521 (Comm), In the Matter of Kings Solutions Group Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1943
Pre-contract negotiations can be used to establish known facts or elucidate the contract's genesis and aim, but not to interpret specific provisions or rely on subjective intentions.
Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38, Merthyr (South Wales) Limited v. Merthyr Tydfil County BC [2019] EWCA Civ 526, Elmfield Road Ltd v Trillium [2016] EWHC 3122 (Ch), NHS Commissioning Board v Vasant [2019] EWCA Civ 1245, Schofield v Smith [2022] EWCA Civ 824, Falkonera Shipping Co v Arcadia Energy Pte [2012] EWHC 3678 (Comm)
Rectification requires a mistake not reflecting common intention, outward expression of accord, and continuation of that intention until contract entry.
FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v GLAS Trust Corpn Ltd [2020] Ch 365
Declaratory relief should only be granted if it serves a useful purpose.
Rolls Royce plc v. Unite the Union [2009] EWCA Civ 387, Messier Dowty v Sabena [2000] 1 W.L.R. 2040, Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council [2006] UKHL 25, Higgins v Aspect [2015] UKSC 38
CPR 3.4(2) allows striking out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds, is an abuse of process, or fails to comply with rules.
CPR 3.4(2)
Outcomes
Halsion's Particulars of Claim struck out.
Serious and significant breaches of CPR Part 16 and the TCC Guide; pleading deficiencies in construction, rectification, and estoppel arguments; and inappropriate claims for declaratory relief.
Halsion permitted to replead.
Pleading deficiencies are curable, but require a wholesale redrafting of the Particulars of Claim.
Similar Cases
WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Limited & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 485 (TCC)
Kamran Attaei v Nahid Alsharif & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2972 (KB)
Jenni Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Limited
[2023] EWHC 3219 (TCC)
RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (DERBYSHIRE) LIMITED v DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & Anor.
[2022] EWHC 1209 (TCC)