Sheffield Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust v Hadfield Healthcare Partnerships Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 644 (TCC) (22 March 2023)

Sheffield Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust v Hadfield Healthcare Partnerships Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 644 (TCC) (22 March 2023)

Hadfield's construction of the standstill agreement is arguable and not bound to fail; limitation issues require full trial. Claims for negligence and specific performance are not suitable for summary determination as limitation depends on standstill agreement scope. The existence of a concurrent duty of care for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 644 (TCC)
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 (tcc) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment/strike Out and Security for Costs
Outcome
Applications for summary judgment and strike out dismissed; security for costs application not fully determined in this judgment.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Standstill Agreements, Concurrent Duty of Care, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Limitation Periods Standstill Agreements Concurrent Duty of Care Summary Judgment +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 34 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 (tcc) / 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 standstill agreements
  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 defective workmanship/materials

Ratio Decidendi

Hadfield's construction of the standstill agreement is arguable and not bound to fail; limitation issues require full trial. Claims for negligence and specific performance are not suitable for summary determination as limitation depends on standstill agreement scope. The existence of a concurrent duty of care for workmanship/materials is unsettled and controversial; factual and contractual matrix must be considered at trial. Security for costs application is conceded on threshold but discretionary grounds must be considered.

Court Disposition

Applications for summary judgment and strike out dismissed; security for costs application not fully determined in this judgment.

Orders

  • Summary judgment/strike out applications dismissed; claims to proceed to trial.
  • Security for costs application: threshold conceded, discretionary grounds to be considered.