Bam Glory Mill Ltd v Balicrest Ltd & Anor

Bam Glory Mill Ltd v Balicrest Ltd & Anor

The particulars of claim, as supplemented by the response to the request for further information, now sufficiently identify the alleged obstructions and their locations. While the allocation of responsibility between defendants remains unclear, this does not render the claim abusive or fatally defective. The claim is not analogous to Nomura, as the claimant intends to prosecute the action and has set out the basis of the claim in a rudimentary way. The application to strike out is refused, but the claimant must further particularise the allocation of responsibility and loss.

Parties
Claimant: BAM Glory Mill Limited; First Defendant: Balicrest Limited; Second Defendant: McGee Civil Engineering Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Application to Strike Out Particulars of Claim or for Further Information
Outcome
Application to strike out refused; further particulars ordered.
Legal Topics
Collateral Warranties, Limitation Periods, Particularisation of Claims, Abuse of Process, Remediation Obligations
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Collateral Warranties Limitation Periods Particularisation of Claims Abuse of Process Remediation Obligations

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BAM Glory Mill Limited

Claimant

Balicrest Limited

First Defendant

McGee Civil Engineering Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Application to Strike Out Particulars of Claim or for Further Information

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim should be struck out for lack of particularity or as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the claims are sufficiently particularised as to the nature, location, and responsibility for alleged obstructions
  3. 3 Whether the claim falls within the Nomura abuse of process principle

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars of claim, as supplemented by the response to the request for further information, now sufficiently identify the alleged obstructions and their locations. While the allocation of responsibility between defendants remains unclear, this does not render the claim abusive or fatally defective. The claim is not analogous to Nomura, as the claimant intends to prosecute the action and has set out the basis of the claim in a rudimentary way. The application to strike out is refused, but the claimant must further particularise the allocation of responsibility and loss.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused; further particulars ordered.

Orders

  • Claimant to state for each defendant and each obstruction whether breach of contract is alleged and the supporting facts.
  • Claimant to provide full details of loss and damage claimed for each defendant.