Peabody Trust v National House-Building Council
[2024] EWHC 2063 (TCC)
Vinci Construction UK Limited v Eastwood and Partners (Consulting Engineers) Limited & Anor
24 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1899 (TCC)
High Court
A building had a bad floor. The main contractor sued the sub-contractor, who then sued the designer. The designer argued everything was too late, but the judge said there was still a chance the sub-contractor could win on some of their claims and a full trial is needed to decide that.
Key Facts
- •Vinci (claimant) engaged Eastwood (1st defendant) and Snowden (2nd defendant) for work at a warehouse.
- •Snowden engaged GHW (3rd party) to design floor slabs.
- •Defective floor slabs led to adjudication awards against Vinci by Princes (original client).
- •Vinci sued Eastwood and Snowden; Snowden brought an additional claim against GHW for indemnity/contribution.
- •GHW defended on limitation grounds, arguing Snowden's claims were statute-barred.
- •Snowden argued its negligence claim against GHW was not time-barred under sections 2 and/or 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment test: Claimant must have a realistic prospect of success; court shouldn't conduct a mini-trial.
CPR 24.2, Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472, Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Condek Holdings Limited and Others [2014] EWHC 2016 (TCC), Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1, Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell [2021] UKSC 3, Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550, Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd [2007] FSR 63, ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v TTE Training Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 725, Easyair Ltd (t/a Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch).
Limitation Act 1980, section 5: Action on simple contract must be brought within six years of cause of action accruing.
Limitation Act 1980, section 5
Limitation Act 1980, section 2: Action in tort must be brought within six years of cause of action accruing; accrual depends on type of damage (physical or economic).
Limitation Act 1980, section 2, Forster v Outred [1982] 1 WLR 86, Nykredit v Edward Erdman (No.2) [1997] 1 WLR 1627, Co-Operative Group Limited v Birse Developments Limited [2014] EWHC 530 (TCC), Pirelli General Cable Works Limited v Oscar Faber & Partners [1983] 2 AC 1, Ketteman v Hansel Properties Limited [1987] AC 189, Abbott v Will Gannon and Smith Limited [2005] EWCA Civ 198, URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 772.
Limitation Act 1980, section 14A: Provides a longer limitation period (6 years or 3 years from knowledge) for negligence claims; claimant must prove knowledge of material facts about the damage and its attribution to the defendant's negligence.
Limitation Act 1980, section 14A, Nash v Eli Lilly [1993] 4 All ER 383, Haward v Fawcetts [2006] 1 WLR 682, Halford v Brookes [1991] 1 WLR 428, Spencer-Ward v Humberts [1995] 1 EGLR 123.
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978: Allows for contribution claims between tortfeasors.
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
CPR 3.4(2)(a): Court may strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
CPR 3.4(2)(a), Barratt v Enfield BC [2001] 2 AC 550, Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc [2022] EWCA Civ 318, Hamida Begum v Maran (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 326, Rushbond v JS Design Partnership [2021] EWCA Civ 1889.
Outcomes
Snowden's contract claim against GHW struck out as statute-barred.
Claim was outside the six-year limitation period under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980.
GHW's application for summary judgment on Snowden's negligence claim dismissed.
Snowden has a real prospect of proving that actionable damage occurred within the limitation period (either based on physical damage occurring after May 2015 or based on section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980), and the question of attribution requires further evidence at trial.
GHW's application to strike out Snowden's contribution claim dismissed.
The claim, though not explicitly pleaded under the 1978 Act in the Particulars of Claim, was clearly intended and sufficiently particularised within the Additional Claim Form.