Multiplex Construction (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd [2008] EWHC 231 (TCC) (07 February 2008)

Multiplex Construction (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd [2008] EWHC 231 (TCC) (07 February 2008)

The application to amend was refused in respect of the new valuation methodologies and figures because allowing them would substantially disrupt trial preparation, cause prejudice to Multiplex, increase the scope and length of trial, and risk the scheduled trial date, contrary to the overriding objective. The amendment to paragraph 148 was allowed as it would not cause undue prejudice or disrupt trial preparation.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 231 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Multiplex Construction (UK) Limited; First Defendant: Cleveland Bridge UK Limited; Second Defendant: Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Construction Dispute / Interlocutory Application to Amend Pleadings Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application to amend refused in part and allowed in part
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Case Management, Valuation of Construction Works, Costs Management
Civil Procedure Construction Law Amendment of Pleadings Case Management Valuation of Construction Works Costs 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Multiplex Construction (UK) Limited

Claimant

Cleveland Bridge UK Limited

First Defendant

Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Construction Dispute / Interlocutory Application to Amend Pleadings Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cleveland Bridge should be permitted to amend its pleadings to introduce new valuation methodologies and figures shortly before trial
  2. 2 Whether such amendments would cause prejudice or disrupt trial preparation

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend was refused in respect of the new valuation methodologies and figures because allowing them would substantially disrupt trial preparation, cause prejudice to Multiplex, increase the scope and length of trial, and risk the scheduled trial date, contrary to the overriding objective. The amendment to paragraph 148 was allowed as it would not cause undue prejudice or disrupt trial preparation.

Court Disposition

Application to amend refused in part and allowed in part

Orders

  • Refusal of Cleveland Bridge's application to amend in respect of paragraphs 50A to D and 104.1 to 104.4 and related figures in schedule 2
  • Permission granted to amend paragraph 148 and related figures in schedule 2