Reaction Engines Ltd v BNP Paribas Depository Services (Jersey) Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 3204 (TCC) (23 July 2024)
The proposed preliminary issues were unsuitable for separate determination because they would not materially reduce the scope of the main trial, would require extensive factual investigation overlapping with the main issues, and risked inconsistent findings. The construction of the relevant contract clause did not support a conclusive effect as argued by the applicant.
- Citation
- [2024] EWHC 3204 (TCC)
- Parties
- Claimant: Reaction Engines Limited; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: BNP Paribas Depository Services (Jersey) Limited (formerly BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Limited); Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: BNP Paribas Depositary Services Limited (formerly BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company Limited); Third Party: A&H Construction and Developments PLC; Fourth Party: Michael Bradbrook Consultants Limited; Fifth Party: Feasibility Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 July 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Construction Dispute / Application for Hearing of Preliminary Issues at Costs and Case Management Conference
- Outcome
- Application for hearing of preliminary issues refused
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Issues, Practical Completion, Estoppel, Interpretation of Contract Clauses, Case Management
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Reaction Engines Limited
Claimant
BNP Paribas Depository Services (Jersey) Limited (formerly BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Limited)
Defendant / Part 20 Claimant
BNP Paribas Depositary Services Limited (formerly BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company Limited)
Defendant / Part 20 Claimant
A&H Construction and Developments PLC
Third Party
Michael Bradbrook Consultants Limited
Fourth Party
Feasibility Limited
Fifth Party
Procedural Posture
Civil Construction Dispute / Application for Hearing of Preliminary Issues at Costs and Case Management Conference
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether practical completion was deemed to have occurred on 18 October 2018 under the Design and Build Contract
- 2 Whether there was an oral agreement to treat the October 2018 Practical Completion Statement as a partial possession or sectional completion certificate
- 3 Whether A&H was estopped from relying on the 19 October 2018 document as a valid certificate under clause 2.27
Ratio Decidendi
The proposed preliminary issues were unsuitable for separate determination because they would not materially reduce the scope of the main trial, would require extensive factual investigation overlapping with the main issues, and risked inconsistent findings. The construction of the relevant contract clause did not support a conclusive effect as argued by the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application for hearing of preliminary issues refused
Orders
- No order for hearing of preliminary issues
- Proceed to full trial without preliminary issues
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment