Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 855 (TCC) (23 March 2007)

Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 855 (TCC) (23 March 2007)

CCD's failure to comply with the TCC pre-action protocol, despite limitation concerns, constituted a serious breach. The court exercised its discretion to make adverse costs orders immediately, finding that protocol compliance likely would have avoided litigation and unnecessary costs. Stent is entitled to recover 50% of its costs for the relevant period, and CCD must bear 50% of its own costs for the same period.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 855 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Charles Church Developments Ltd; First Defendant: Stent Foundations Ltd; Second Defendant: Peter Dann Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Construction and Engineering Dispute / Costs Application Following Breach of Pre Action Protocol
Outcome
Adverse costs orders made against claimant for breach of pre-action protocol; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Pre Action Protocols, Costs Orders, Limitation, Mediation
Civil Procedure Construction Law Pre Action Protocols Costs Orders Limitation Mediation

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

Parties

Charles Church Developments Ltd

Claimant

Stent Foundations Ltd

First Defendant

Peter Dann Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction and Engineering Dispute / Costs Application Following Breach of Pre Action Protocol

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to comply with the TCC pre-action protocol justifies adverse costs orders
  2. 2 Appropriate timing and quantum of costs orders for breach of protocol
  3. 3 Effect of limitation concerns on protocol compliance

Ratio Decidendi

CCD's failure to comply with the TCC pre-action protocol, despite limitation concerns, constituted a serious breach. The court exercised its discretion to make adverse costs orders immediately, finding that protocol compliance likely would have avoided litigation and unnecessary costs. Stent is entitled to recover 50% of its costs for the relevant period, and CCD must bear 50% of its own costs for the same period.

Court Disposition

Adverse costs orders made against claimant for breach of pre-action protocol; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • CCD to pay Stent 50% of its costs incurred from 9 June 2006 to 13 April 2007.
  • CCD to bear 50% of its own costs for the same period.