Goldkorn v MPA (Construction Consultants) Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 385 (TCC) (24 February 2025)

Goldkorn v MPA (Construction Consultants) Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 385 (TCC) (24 February 2025)

The assignment of claims to the claimant was ineffective due to the prohibition in clause 16.2 of the PM Appointment, which covered both future performance and accrued rights. Clause 18.2 expressly prevented enforcement by anyone other than the client or its permitted assignees. The claimant was neither a permitted assignee nor entitled to enforce as a beneficiary under a trust. The Vandepitte procedure could not override the express contractual prohibition. Accordingly, the claimant had no title to bring the claims in either capacity.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 385 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Benjamin Goldkorn; First Defendant: MPA (Construction Consultants) Ltd; Second Defendant: Kazu Restaurants 1 Ltd (in liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Trial of Preliminary Issues / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claim dismissed on preliminary issues; claimant has no title to bring the claims.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Contractual Rights, Non Assignment Clauses, Trusts and Beneficiary Rights, Vandepitte Procedure, Concurrent Liability in Contract and Tort, Interpretation of Contract Terms
Contract Law Equity and Trusts Tort Law Construction Law Assignment of Contractual Rights Non Assignment Clauses Trusts and Beneficiary Rights Vandepitte Procedure +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Benjamin Goldkorn

Claimant

MPA (Construction Consultants) Ltd

First Defendant

Kazu Restaurants 1 Ltd (in liquidation)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trial of Preliminary Issues / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has title to bring claims against the first defendant as assignee under the Deed of Assignment dated 22 December 2020
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has title to bring claims as beneficiary of rights held on trust under the Declaration of Trust dated 14 February 2022

Ratio Decidendi

The assignment of claims to the claimant was ineffective due to the prohibition in clause 16.2 of the PM Appointment, which covered both future performance and accrued rights. Clause 18.2 expressly prevented enforcement by anyone other than the client or its permitted assignees. The claimant was neither a permitted assignee nor entitled to enforce as a beneficiary under a trust. The Vandepitte procedure could not override the express contractual prohibition. Accordingly, the claimant had no title to bring the claims in either capacity.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed on preliminary issues; claimant has no title to bring the claims.

Orders

  • Claimant has no title to bring any of the claims set out in the Particulars of Claim against the First Defendant as assignee or beneficiary.
  • Time for consequential applications extended for 14 days after hand down with liberty to apply.