Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 550 (11 April 2001)

Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 550 (11 April 2001)

The judge at first instance applied the wrong standard by striking out or excluding claims on the balance of probabilities rather than considering whether there was a real prospect of success as required by CPR Part 24. The evidence of the claimant's experts, though limited, was sufficient to provide a real prospect of success on the claims regarding the quality of co-ordination drawings. The exclusion of claims as a case management tool was inappropriate where the claims were arguable on the pleadings. The appeal was allowed and the struck out/excluded claims were reinstated for trial.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 550
Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust; Defendant/respondent: Frederick Alexander Hammond; Defendant/respondent: John Richard Lerche; Defendant/respondent: Anthony Robert Harris; Defendant/respondent: Alan Massey; Defendant/respondent: Alfred George Hepden; Defendant/respondent: Sylvian Reinhold; Defendant/respondent: Brian Ernest Teale; Defendant/respondent: Watkins Gray International (UK); Defendant/respondent: Austen Associates (A Firm); Defendant/respondent: North, Neighbour and Nicholson; Defendant/respondent: Clarke Nicholls & Marcell (A Firm); Defendant/respondent: Arlington Project Management Limited; Defendant/respondent: Project Management International Limited; Defendant/respondent: Ivor Gordon Berresford; Defendant/respondent: Keith Pegden Smith; Defendant/respondent: Austen Associates Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Orders and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Professional Negligence, Case Management, Standard of Proof, Expert Evidence
Construction Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Professional Negligence Case Management Standard of Proof Expert Evidence

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust

Claimant/appellant

Frederick Alexander Hammond

Defendant/respondent

John Richard Lerche

Defendant/respondent

Anthony Robert Harris

Defendant/respondent

Alan Massey

Defendant/respondent

Alfred George Hepden

Defendant/respondent

Sylvian Reinhold

Defendant/respondent

Brian Ernest Teale

Defendant/respondent

Watkins Gray International (UK)

Defendant/respondent

Austen Associates (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

North, Neighbour and Nicholson

Defendant/respondent

Clarke Nicholls & Marcell (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Arlington Project Management Limited

Defendant/respondent

Project Management International Limited

Defendant/respondent

Ivor Gordon Berresford

Defendant/respondent

Keith Pegden Smith

Defendant/respondent

Austen Associates Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Orders and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge at first instance applied the correct standard in striking out or excluding claims (summary judgment vs. trial standard)
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of the claimant's experts provided a real prospect of success on the claims against the defendants, particularly regarding the quality of co-ordination drawings
  3. 3 Whether the exclusion of claims as a case management tool was appropriate under the Civil Procedure Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance applied the wrong standard by striking out or excluding claims on the balance of probabilities rather than considering whether there was a real prospect of success as required by CPR Part 24. The evidence of the claimant's experts, though limited, was sufficient to provide a real prospect of success on the claims regarding the quality of co-ordination drawings. The exclusion of claims as a case management tool was inappropriate where the claims were arguable on the pleadings. The appeal was allowed and the struck out/excluded claims were reinstated for trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Struck out and excluded claims reinstated for trial
  • Costs to be determined