Archlane Ltd v Johnson Controls Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC B12 (TCC) (10 May 2012)

Archlane Ltd v Johnson Controls Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC B12 (TCC) (10 May 2012)

Permission to amend the defence as proposed is refused because the proposed amendment, asserting that the works were carried out by a complete stranger unconnected to the First Defendant, is fanciful and unsupported by evidence, would cause significant prejudice to the Claimant and Second Defendant, and the First Defendant is substantially the author of its own prejudice by failing to investigate earlier.

Citation
[2012] EWHC B12 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Archlane Limited; First Defendant: Johnson Controls Limited; Second Defendant: Cofely Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Defence / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admissions, Negligence, Liability for Subcontractors, Prejudice in Litigation
Civil Procedure Tort Law Construction Law Amendment of Pleadings Withdrawal of Admissions Negligence Liability for Subcontractors Prejudice in Litigation

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Archlane Limited

Claimant

Johnson Controls Limited

First Defendant

Cofely Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Defence / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant should be permitted to amend its defence to withdraw admissions regarding responsibility for the works causing the flood
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment has a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the withdrawal of the admission would cause prejudice to the Claimant or Second Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the defence as proposed is refused because the proposed amendment, asserting that the works were carried out by a complete stranger unconnected to the First Defendant, is fanciful and unsupported by evidence, would cause significant prejudice to the Claimant and Second Defendant, and the First Defendant is substantially the author of its own prejudice by failing to investigate earlier.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to amend the defence in the terms proposed is refused.
  • No bar on seeking a narrower amendment limited to denying the works were carried out by an employee, but no permission granted at this stage.