Iliffe & Anor v Feltham Construction Ltd & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 715 (09 July 2015)

Iliffe & Anor v Feltham Construction Ltd & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 715 (09 July 2015)

The requirements for summary judgment under CPR 24.2 were not satisfied because causation of the fire and the scope of Feltham's contractual responsibility were not sufficiently clear, and there was a compelling reason for a full trial given the multi-party context and unresolved factual issues.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 715
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Hon. Edward Iliffe; Claimant/respondent: Mrs Teleri Iliffe; Defendant/appellant: Feltham Construction Limited; Third Party: Affleck Mechanical Services Limited; Fourth Party: Docherty Chimney Group Limited; Fifth Party: Karl Callaway
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (construction Dispute) / Appeal From Summary Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Multi Party Litigation, Contract Formation, Causation, Liability for Defective Workmanship
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Multi Party Litigation Contract Formation Causation Liability for Defective Workmanship

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

Parties

The Hon. Edward Iliffe

Claimant/respondent

Mrs Teleri Iliffe

Claimant/respondent

Feltham Construction Limited

Defendant/appellant

Affleck Mechanical Services Limited

Third Party

Docherty Chimney Group Limited

Fourth Party

Karl Callaway

Fifth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (construction Dispute) / Appeal From Summary Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment on liability was appropriate in a multi-party construction dispute where causation and contractual responsibility were unclear
  2. 2 Whether a contract existed between the claimants and Feltham for Phase 3 works and the scope of design responsibility
  3. 3 Whether it was just to enter summary judgment before all parties had pleaded their cases

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements for summary judgment under CPR 24.2 were not satisfied because causation of the fire and the scope of Feltham's contractual responsibility were not sufficiently clear, and there was a compelling reason for a full trial given the multi-party context and unresolved factual issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside

Orders

  • Judge's order of 3 July 2014 granting summary judgment on liability and interim payment set aside
  • No party to recover costs referable to preparation of the appeal bundle