Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd v Karakusevic Carson Architects LLP & Ors [2024] EWHC 3449 (TCC) (05 July 2024)

Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd v Karakusevic Carson Architects LLP & Ors [2024] EWHC 3449 (TCC) (05 July 2024)

Willmott Dixon knew the essence of its claim against KCA at the time of issuing proceedings, including the relevant contract, the nature of the alleged breaches, and the general defects alleged by LBH. The claim form, though general, was not abusive as there was a known basis for the claim and it was not issued merely to buy time or await something turning up. The application to strike out is dismissed.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3449 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd; First Defendant: Karakusevic Carson Architects LLP; Second Defendant: Peter Brett Associates LLP; Third Defendant: Toureen Contractors Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Claim Form / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out)
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Limitation Periods, Strike Out Applications, Particularisation of Claims, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Construction Law Abuse of Process Limitation Periods Strike Out Applications Particularisation of Claims Professional Negligence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd

Claimant

Karakusevic Carson Architects LLP

First Defendant

Peter Brett Associates LLP

Second Defendant

Toureen Contractors Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Claim Form / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's claim form should be struck out as an abuse of process for lack of particularisation and/or absence of a known basis for the claim at the time of issue.

Ratio Decidendi

Willmott Dixon knew the essence of its claim against KCA at the time of issuing proceedings, including the relevant contract, the nature of the alleged breaches, and the general defects alleged by LBH. The claim form, though general, was not abusive as there was a known basis for the claim and it was not issued merely to buy time or await something turning up. The application to strike out is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Application to strike out the claim form is dismissed.