UK Insurance Ltd v Carillion Specialist Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 1588 (TCC) (27 June 2019)

UK Insurance Ltd v Carillion Specialist Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 1588 (TCC) (27 June 2019)

The Claimant had the requisite knowledge for the purposes of section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 by June 2013, when it received the Morley letter identifying insufficient movement joints as the cause of render cracking, and certainly by September 2013 upon receipt of the second Morley letter. This knowledge was sufficient to trigger the limitation period, making the claim time-barred. The claim was therefore dismissed by summary judgment. The strike out application was redundant but would not have succeeded as there was a basic plea of causation.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1588 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: UK Insurance Limited; First Defendant: Carillion Specialist Services Limited; Second Defendant: Construction Auditing Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Tort Claim for Professional Negligence (summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications) / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications Before Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed as time-barred by summary judgment in favour of the Second Defendant.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Section 14 a Limitation Act 1980, Summary Judgment (cpr Part 24), Strike Out (cpr Part 3.4), Causation in Negligence, Latent Defects Insurance
Insurance Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Section 14 a Limitation Act 1980 Summary Judgment (cpr Part 24) Strike Out (cpr Part 3.4) +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UK Insurance Limited

Claimant

Carillion Specialist Services Limited

First Defendant

Construction Auditing Services Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Claim for Professional Negligence (summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications) / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the Second Defendant is time-barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant has pleaded a complete cause of action on causation against the Second Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant had the requisite knowledge for the purposes of section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 by June 2013, when it received the Morley letter identifying insufficient movement joints as the cause of render cracking, and certainly by September 2013 upon receipt of the second Morley letter. This knowledge was sufficient to trigger the limitation period, making the claim time-barred. The claim was therefore dismissed by summary judgment. The strike out application was redundant but would not have succeeded as there was a basic plea of causation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as time-barred by summary judgment in favour of the Second Defendant.

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted to the Second Defendant; claim dismissed.
  • Strike out application redundant and not determined.