Sheffield Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust v Hadfield Healthcare Partnerships Limited & Ors

Sheffield Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust v Hadfield Healthcare Partnerships Limited & Ors

Hadfield's construction of the First Standstill Agreement is arguable and not bound to fail; issues of limitation and concurrent duty of care are not suitable for summary determination and require full trial; Hadfield is unable to pay Veolia's costs and security for costs is appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Sheffield Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Hadfield Healthcare Partnerships Limited; First Part 20 Defendant: Kajima Construction Europe (UK) Limited; Second Part 20 Defendant: Veolia Energy & Utility Services UK PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Dispute / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment/strike Out and Security for Costs
Outcome
Kajima's application for summary judgment and/or strike out dismissed; Hadfield ordered to provide security for costs to Veolia.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Security for Costs, Concurrent Duty of Care, Interpretation of Contracts, Rectification, PFI Agreements
Commercial Law Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Summary Judgment Strike Out +5 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 5 Authorities cited 39 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheffield Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust

Claimant

Hadfield Healthcare Partnerships Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Kajima Construction Europe (UK) Limited

First Part 20 Defendant

Veolia Energy & Utility Services UK PLC

Second Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Dispute / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment/strike Out and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hadfield's claims against Kajima are time-barred under limitation clauses and the First Standstill Agreement
  2. 2 Whether claims for negligence and specific performance are time-barred under clause 9.7 of the Construction Contract
  3. 3 Whether a concurrent duty of care in tort arises for workmanship/materials defects

Ratio Decidendi

Hadfield's construction of the First Standstill Agreement is arguable and not bound to fail; issues of limitation and concurrent duty of care are not suitable for summary determination and require full trial; Hadfield is unable to pay Veolia's costs and security for costs is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Kajima's application for summary judgment and/or strike out dismissed; Hadfield ordered to provide security for costs to Veolia.

Orders

  • Hadfield to provide security for costs in the sum of £2,603,743 by 4pm on 5 April 2023.
  • Unless security is given, Hadfield's Additional Claim against Veolia shall be stayed, with liberty for Veolia to apply for judgment.