Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd & Anor

Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd & Anor

The claimant seriously breached the pre-action protocol by failing to seek directions when issuing proceedings in the face of potential limitation issues and by not alerting the defendant or engaging in the protocol process. This breach led to unnecessary costs being incurred in the higher-cost regime of court proceedings rather than the lower-cost pre-action protocol process. The court exercises its discretion to order the claimant to pay 50% of Stent's costs incurred from 9 June 2006 to 13 April 2007 and to bear 50% of its own costs for the same period, as this reflects the likely position had the protocol been followed and places the innocent party in no worse a position.

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
Civil (construction Dispute) / Costs Application Following Case Management and Directions
Outcome
Application granted in part; adverse costs orders made against claimant for failure to comply with pre-action protocol.
Legal Topics
Pre Action Protocols, Costs Orders, Case Management, Limitation Periods
Civil Procedure Construction Law Pre Action Protocols Costs Orders Case Management Limitation Periods

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 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

Civil (construction Dispute) / Costs Application Following Case Management and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's failure to comply with the pre-action protocol for construction and engineering disputes justifies an adverse costs order
  2. 2 Whether costs should be determined immediately or at the conclusion of the action
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum and timing of costs orders for non-compliance with pre-action protocol

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant seriously breached the pre-action protocol by failing to seek directions when issuing proceedings in the face of potential limitation issues and by not alerting the defendant or engaging in the protocol process. This breach led to unnecessary costs being incurred in the higher-cost regime of court proceedings rather than the lower-cost pre-action protocol process. The court exercises its discretion to order the claimant to pay 50% of Stent's costs incurred from 9 June 2006 to 13 April 2007 and to bear 50% of its own costs for the same period, as this reflects the likely position had the protocol been followed and places the innocent party in no worse a position.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; adverse costs orders made against claimant for failure to comply with pre-action protocol.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay 50% of Stent's costs incurred from 9 June 2006 to 13 April 2007, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Claimant to bear 50% of its own costs for the same period.