WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 251 (TCC) (09 February 2024)

WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 251 (TCC) (09 February 2024)

WOL has a properly arguable case that Croydon's obligations under the SPA are not restricted by the existence of collateral warranties and may extend to all defects, not just snagging. Croydon's application for strike out or summary judgment fails. However, WOL must amend its pleadings to clearly set out its case on causation against Croydon.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 251 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: WOL (London) LLP; First Defendant: Croydon Investments Limited; Second Defendant: RGB P&C Limited (In Liquidation); Third Defendant: Stroma Building Control Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed in part; WOL required to amend pleadings on causation.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contracts, Collateral Warranties, Defective Premises, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Contract Law Construction Law Property Law Interpretation of Contracts Collateral Warranties Defective Premises Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WOL (London) LLP

Claimant

Croydon Investments Limited

First Defendant

RGB P&C Limited (In Liquidation)

Second Defendant

Stroma Building Control Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against Croydon discloses reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  2. 2 Whether Croydon is entitled to summary judgment under CPR Part 24
  3. 3 Proper construction of the SPA regarding Croydon's liability for defects

Ratio Decidendi

WOL has a properly arguable case that Croydon's obligations under the SPA are not restricted by the existence of collateral warranties and may extend to all defects, not just snagging. Croydon's application for strike out or summary judgment fails. However, WOL must amend its pleadings to clearly set out its case on causation against Croydon.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in part; WOL required to amend pleadings on causation.

Orders

  • Strike out and summary judgment applications by Croydon dismissed.
  • WOL to provide a re-amended pleading clearly setting out the case on causation against Croydon.