Tate Gallery (Board of Trustees of) v Duffy Construction Ltd & Anor (No. 2) [2007] EWHC 912 (TCC) (02 April 2007)

Tate Gallery (Board of Trustees of) v Duffy Construction Ltd & Anor (No. 2) [2007] EWHC 912 (TCC) (02 April 2007)

The reply should not be struck out because, although the Trustees' prospects of success are bleak, the attribution of recklessness to the company is a matter for trial and cannot be determined on a strike out application. However, the appendix to the reply is struck out as it contains diffuse, irrelevant allegations that do not support a case of recklessness or breach of general condition 4(a) and would obstruct the just disposal of proceedings.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 912 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: The Board of Trustees of Tate The Gallery; First Defendant: Duffy Construction Limited; Second Defendant: Specialist Services (Electrical) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Pleadings And/or for Summary Judgment / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Appendix to the reply struck out; remainder of application dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Precautions Clause, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Attribution of Employee Conduct to Company, Recklessness in Insurance Context
Insurance Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Reasonable Precautions Clause Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Attribution of Employee Conduct to Company Recklessness in Insurance Context

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Board of Trustees of Tate The Gallery

Claimant

Duffy Construction Limited

First Defendant

Specialist Services (Electrical) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Pleadings And/or for Summary Judgment / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's reply and appendix should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or likely to obstruct just disposal
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted on the issue of breach of general condition 4(a) of the insurance policy
  3. 3 Proper construction of 'reasonable precautions' clauses in insurance policies

Ratio Decidendi

The reply should not be struck out because, although the Trustees' prospects of success are bleak, the attribution of recklessness to the company is a matter for trial and cannot be determined on a strike out application. However, the appendix to the reply is struck out as it contains diffuse, irrelevant allegations that do not support a case of recklessness or breach of general condition 4(a) and would obstruct the just disposal of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appendix to the reply struck out; remainder of application dismissed

Orders

  • Appendix to the reply is struck out pursuant to CPR r 3.4(2)(b) as an abuse of process or likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings.
  • Application to strike out the remainder of the reply is dismissed.