Peabody Trust v National House-Building Council
[2024] EWHC 2063 (TCC)
Willmott Dixon Construction Limited v Prater & Ors
21 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 1190 (TCC)
High Court
A builder sued several companies for fire safety problems. One company tried to delay a separate claim against its related companies, saying it should wait until the main case finished. The judge said no, as hearing both claims together is more efficient and avoids extra court time later.
Key Facts
- •Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd. (Claimant) brought a claim exceeding £46 million against several defendants for fire safety defects in a Woolwich development.
- •Aecom (Fourth Defendant) made an additional claim against Lindner Building Envelope GmbH, Lindner Fassaden GmbH, Lindner Group KG (German parties), and Lindner Prater Ltd (LPL, Third Party) for a Building Liability Order under section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022.
- •The German parties and LPL applied for a stay of the additional claim.
- •The additional claim is contingent on the court finding liability against Prater and Lindner in the main claim and their liability to contribute to Aecom's losses.
- •Aecom argues that Prater and Lindner have divested assets, leaving them potentially insolvent, making the Building Liability Order necessary.
- •The German parties and LPL contend that the additional claim should be stayed until after judgment in the main claim, arguing it’s premature and inefficient to proceed concurrently.
Legal Principles
Section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022 allows the High Court to make a Building Liability Order if it considers it just and equitable.
Building Safety Act 2022, section 130
The overriding objective is to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
Implied - Overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules
A Building Liability Order can be sought even if the associated company didn't exist at the time of the main proceedings.
Judge's interpretation of Building Safety Act 2022
Outcomes
The application for a stay of the additional claim was refused.
The court found that it was more efficient and just to hear the additional claim concurrently with the main claim, allowing for better determination of 'relevant liability' and 'just and equitable' considerations. The applicants’ offer to be bound by findings in the main claim was deemed insufficient to address all relevant issues. The court considered that separating the claims would lead to significant inefficiencies and potential for further hearings.
Similar Cases
Redrow Plc & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWCA Civ 651
Clarion Housing Association Limited v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited
[2023] EWHC 620 (TCC)
Lancashire Schools SPC Phase 2 Limited v Lendlease Construction (Europe) Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 37 (TCC)
Sheffield Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust v Hadfield Healthcare Partnerships Limited & Ors
[2023] EWHC 644 (TCC)