Connect Plus (M25) Ltd v Highways England Company Ltd

Connect Plus (M25) Ltd v Highways England Company Ltd

The issues raised in paragraph 10(2) of the Claim Form, as clarified by the Particulars of Claim, were matters comprised in the Dispute before the Expert or, at minimum, arose out of substantially the same facts and matters. There was no breach of the dispute resolution procedure, and even if there were, the court would exercise its discretion against granting a stay. The application to strike out or stay was refused.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Connect Plus (M25) Limited; Defendant/applicant: Highways England Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Contract Dispute (pfi) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out or Stay Part of Claim
Outcome
Application to strike out or stay refused
Legal Topics
Expert Determination, Interpretation of Contractual Terms, Waiver and Estoppel, Jurisdiction of Expert, Stay of Proceedings
Contract Law Construction Law Dispute Resolution Expert Determination Interpretation of Contractual Terms Waiver and Estoppel Jurisdiction of Expert Stay of Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Connect Plus (M25) Limited

Claimant/respondent

Highways England Company Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Contract Dispute (pfi) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out or Stay Part of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 10(2) of the Claim Form raises matters already determined by the Expert under the contract's dispute resolution procedure
  2. 2 Whether the court should strike out or stay claims not previously referred to the Expert
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is precluded from raising new arguments by waiver, estoppel, or consent to jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The issues raised in paragraph 10(2) of the Claim Form, as clarified by the Particulars of Claim, were matters comprised in the Dispute before the Expert or, at minimum, arose out of substantially the same facts and matters. There was no breach of the dispute resolution procedure, and even if there were, the court would exercise its discretion against granting a stay. The application to strike out or stay was refused.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out or stay refused

Orders

  • No strike out or stay of paragraph 10(2) of the Claim Form; proceedings to continue on all issues