Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited v Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Limited & Anor.

Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited v Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Limited & Anor.

It was not abuse of process for the Claimant to put the action on hold to align with the Aviva proceedings, as this was commercially sensible and acknowledged by the First Defendant. The delay, though significant, was not improper warehousing. Even if abuse had been found, striking out would not have been proportionate due to the First Defendant's own delay in applying for strike-out.

Parties
Claimant: Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited; First Defendant: Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Limited; Second Defendant: Sabre Structures Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Strike Out Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Warehousing Claims, Strike Out Applications, Limitation Periods, Case Management
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Construction Law Abuse of Process Warehousing Claims Strike Out Applications Limitation Periods Case Management

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited

Claimant

Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Limited

First Defendant

Sabre Structures Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's conduct amounted to abuse of process by warehousing the claim
  2. 2 Whether striking out the claim is a proportionate sanction

Ratio Decidendi

It was not abuse of process for the Claimant to put the action on hold to align with the Aviva proceedings, as this was commercially sensible and acknowledged by the First Defendant. The delay, though significant, was not improper warehousing. Even if abuse had been found, striking out would not have been proportionate due to the First Defendant's own delay in applying for strike-out.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Strike-out application dismissed
  • Summary assessment of costs: £95,000 payable by the First Defendant