Halsion Limited v St Thomas Street Development Limited
[2023] EWHC 2045 (TCC)
Laing O’rourke Delivery Limited v Sweett (UK) Limited
8 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1088 (TCC)
High Court
A construction company (LOR) sued another company (Sweett) for problems with a hospital they built. Sweett wanted the lawsuit thrown out, saying LOR's paperwork was messy. The judge said LOR's case was good enough to go to trial, even though the paperwork needed some cleaning up. The judge allowed LOR to fix the paperwork.
Key Facts
- •Laing O'Rourke Delivery Limited (LOR) sued Sweett (UK) Limited for breach of contract related to defects in Roseberry Park Hospital, a PFI project.
- •Sweett, by novation, acquired the liabilities of the Independent Tester, Nisbet.
- •Defects included fire safety issues, vanity units, ensuite doors, and roofs.
- •LOR settled with the Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust for over £18 million.
- •Sweett applied to strike out parts of LOR's Particulars of Claim, while LOR sought to amend them.
- •Both Sweett and MAAP (LOR's architect) had liability caps of £10 million.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment/strike-out applications: The court must consider whether the claimant has a 'realistic' prospect of success, not conduct a 'mini-trial', and consider evidence reasonably expected at trial.
EasyAir Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
CPR 3.4(2)(a): A statement of case can be struck out if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
CPR 3.4(2)(a)
CPR 3.4(2)(b): A statement of case can be struck out if it is an abuse of the court's process or obstructs the just disposal of proceedings.
CPR 3.4(2)(b)
CPR 3.4(2)(c): A statement of case can be struck out for failure to comply with rules, practice directions, or court orders (e.g., CPR 16.4(1)(a) requiring a concise statement of facts).
CPR 3.4(2)(c), CPR 16.4(1)(a)
Amendments: A proposed amendment must be arguable, have a real prospect of success, and be coherent and properly particularized.
White Book 2024, 17.3.6; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v James Kemball Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 33
Pleadings must be sufficiently clear to allow the other party to understand the case and prepare a defence; vague or incoherent pleadings can be struck out.
Liberty Homes (Kent) Limited v Kanangaratnam Rajakanthan [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC); Towler v Wills [2010] EWHC 1209 (Comm)
Outcomes
Sweett's application to strike out parts of LOR's Particulars of Claim was dismissed.
The court found that LOR's pleadings, even with their complexities and history of amendments, disclosed a reasonable cause of action with a real prospect of success. The court rejected arguments that the pleadings were unreasonably vague, incoherent, or an abuse of process.
LOR's application to amend its Particulars of Claim was granted.
The amendments, while numerous, were deemed to clarify and strengthen the existing case rather than introduce entirely new claims. The court considered the amendments within the context of the strike-out application and found them to be acceptable.