Multiplex Construction (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd

Multiplex Construction (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd

The amendments sought by Cleveland Bridge would substantially disrupt trial preparation, increase the scope and length of trial, and cause prejudice to Multiplex, especially given the proximity to the trial date. The overriding objective and case management discretion require refusal of non-essential amendments that threaten the trial timetable or cause material prejudice.

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 / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Pleadings
Outcome
Application to amend pleadings refused in substantial part, allowed in limited part.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Case Management, Valuation of Works, Trial Preparation
Civil Procedure Construction Law Amendment of Pleadings Case Management Valuation of Works Trial Preparation

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 / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Pleadings

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 amendments sought by Cleveland Bridge would substantially disrupt trial preparation, increase the scope and length of trial, and cause prejudice to Multiplex, especially given the proximity to the trial date. The overriding objective and case management discretion require refusal of non-essential amendments that threaten the trial timetable or cause material prejudice.

Court Disposition

Application to amend pleadings refused in substantial part, allowed in limited part.

Orders

  • Cleveland Bridge’s application to amend schedule 2 paragraphs 50A to D and 104.1 to 104.4 refused.
  • Amendment to paragraph 148 and consequential amendments allowed.