Tate Gallery (Board of Trustees of) v Duffy Construction Ltd & Anor (No. 2)

Tate Gallery (Board of Trustees of) v Duffy Construction Ltd & Anor (No. 2)

The reply is not struck out because, although the Trustees' case is weak, it cannot be said at this stage that there is no real prospect of success without hearing evidence on attribution of alleged recklessness. However, the appendix to the reply is struck out as it contains diffuse, irrelevant, and disproportionate allegations that do not support a case of recklessness related to the insured event and would obstruct the just disposal of proceedings.

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
Civil Insurance/construction / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Part of Pleadings or for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appendix to the reply struck out; remainder of application dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Precautions Clause, Strike Out Application, Summary Judgment, Attribution of Employee Conduct, Recklessness Standard in Insurance
Insurance Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Reasonable Precautions Clause Strike Out Application Summary Judgment Attribution of Employee Conduct Recklessness Standard in Insurance

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

Civil Insurance/construction / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Part of Pleadings or for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trustees' reply and appendix disclose a reasonable cause of action for breach of general condition 4(a) of the insurance policy
  2. 2 Whether the appendix to the reply should be struck out as an abuse of process or likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted on the issue of breach of general condition 4(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The reply is not struck out because, although the Trustees' case is weak, it cannot be said at this stage that there is no real prospect of success without hearing evidence on attribution of alleged recklessness. However, the appendix to the reply is struck out as it contains diffuse, irrelevant, and disproportionate allegations that do not support a case of recklessness related to the insured event 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 reply is dismissed.