Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd [2008] EWHC 1927 (TCC) (25 July 2008)

Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd [2008] EWHC 1927 (TCC) (25 July 2008)

The trial could not proceed on 10th November 2008 because the timetable was unachievable given the outstanding steps, the complexity of the case, the state of expert and witness evidence, and the practical difficulties of the proposed schedule. The primary responsibility for the delay lay with Fitzpatrick, but Tyco's amended pleadings also contributed. The overriding objective required an adjournment to ensure a fair trial.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1927 (TCC)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Fitzpatrick Contractors Limited; Respondent/defendant: Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Application to Adjourn Trial in Construction Litigation / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application granted; trial adjourned.
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Case Management, Costs Orders, Delay in Litigation, Expert Evidence, Pleadings
Civil Procedure Construction Law Adjournment of Trial Case Management Costs Orders Delay in Litigation Expert Evidence Pleadings

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fitzpatrick Contractors Limited

Applicant/claimant

Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Adjourn Trial in Construction Litigation / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be adjourned due to inability to prepare the case adequately by the scheduled date
  2. 2 Responsibility for delays and consequences for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The trial could not proceed on 10th November 2008 because the timetable was unachievable given the outstanding steps, the complexity of the case, the state of expert and witness evidence, and the practical difficulties of the proposed schedule. The primary responsibility for the delay lay with Fitzpatrick, but Tyco's amended pleadings also contributed. The overriding objective required an adjournment to ensure a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Application granted; trial adjourned.

Orders

  • Trial adjourned from 10th November 2008 to 21st April 2009.
  • Fitzpatrick to pay 60% of Tyco's costs of and occasioned by the adjournment, including the costs of the application hearing.