J Sainsbury Plc & Anor v WSP Consulting Engineers Plc & Anor

J Sainsbury Plc & Anor v WSP Consulting Engineers Plc & Anor

The amendment to substitute a lower figure for remedial works is refused as it is irrelevant; if the claimants had invoked their rights under the Keller contract, they would not have incurred any loss. The amendment to plead a credit for the cost of the planned extension is permitted, with the consequences to be addressed if and when the claimants seek a consequential amendment. The application to strike out part of the response to further information is refused as unnecessary.

Parties
Claimant: J Sainsbury PLC; Claimant: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: WSP Consulting Engineers PLC (Formally WSP Kenchington Ford PLC); Part 20 Defendant: Keller Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction/engineering Dispute) / Interlocutory Application During Trial (application to Amend Pleadings)
Outcome
Application to amend defence regarding remedial works cost refused; application to amend defence regarding extension cost allowed; application to strike out part of response to further information refused.
Legal Topics
Mitigation of Loss, Amendment of Pleadings, Damages, Professional Negligence
Contract Law Construction Law Tort Law Mitigation of Loss Amendment of Pleadings Damages Professional Negligence

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J Sainsbury PLC

Claimant

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited

Claimant

WSP Consulting Engineers PLC (Formally WSP Kenchington Ford PLC)

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Keller Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction/engineering Dispute) / Interlocutory Application During Trial (application to Amend Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be permitted to amend its defence to substitute a lower figure for remedial works and to plead a credit for the cost of a planned extension.
  2. 2 Whether the claimants failed to mitigate their loss by not requiring Keller to return to site for further remedial works.
  3. 3 Whether the claimants should be allowed to amend their response to further information regarding the planned extension.

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to substitute a lower figure for remedial works is refused as it is irrelevant; if the claimants had invoked their rights under the Keller contract, they would not have incurred any loss. The amendment to plead a credit for the cost of the planned extension is permitted, with the consequences to be addressed if and when the claimants seek a consequential amendment. The application to strike out part of the response to further information is refused as unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Application to amend defence regarding remedial works cost refused; application to amend defence regarding extension cost allowed; application to strike out part of response to further information refused.

Orders

  • Defendant's application to amend defence to substitute lower remedial works cost refused.
  • Defendant's application to amend defence to plead credit for extension cost allowed.