Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd & Anor [2008] EWHC 569 (TCC) (19 March 2008)

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd & Anor [2008] EWHC 569 (TCC) (19 March 2008)

Amendments to claims 3 and 4 of schedule 4C were refused due to serious prejudice to Cleveland Bridge, lack of clarity, and the late stage of the trial. Amendments to the rates of payment to Hollandia (including the 10% mark-up) were allowed as Cleveland Bridge could accommodate them without undue prejudice. The amendment to include unspecified expenses was refused for lack of particulars. Equivalent amendments to rates in schedule 4D were permitted.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 569 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited; First Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Cleveland Bridge UK Limited; Second Defendant: Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Pleadings in Ongoing Litigation / At Trial, Post Closing Speeches, Pre Evidence
Outcome
Application to amend allowed in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Case Management Discretion, Damages Claims, Disclosure of Evidence
Civil Procedure Construction Law Amendment of Pleadings Case Management Discretion Damages Claims Disclosure of Evidence

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Cleveland Bridge UK Limited

First Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Pleadings in Ongoing Litigation / At Trial, Post Closing Speeches, Pre Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Multiplex should be permitted to amend claims 3 and 4 of schedule 4C to substantially alter the sums claimed and their basis
  2. 2 Whether Multiplex should be permitted to amend the rates of payment to Hollandia as pleaded in schedule 4C and 4D
  3. 3 Whether Multiplex should be permitted to amend to include previously omitted expenses

Ratio Decidendi

Amendments to claims 3 and 4 of schedule 4C were refused due to serious prejudice to Cleveland Bridge, lack of clarity, and the late stage of the trial. Amendments to the rates of payment to Hollandia (including the 10% mark-up) were allowed as Cleveland Bridge could accommodate them without undue prejudice. The amendment to include unspecified expenses was refused for lack of particulars. Equivalent amendments to rates in schedule 4D were permitted.

Court Disposition

Application to amend allowed in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Amendments to claims 3 and 4 of schedule 4C refused.
  • Amendments to rates of payment to Hollandia in schedule 4C (including 10% mark-up) allowed.