Blue Manchester Ltd v Bug-Alu Technic GmbH & Anor [2021] EWHC 3095 (TCC) (19 November 2021)

Blue Manchester Ltd v Bug-Alu Technic GmbH & Anor [2021] EWHC 3095 (TCC) (19 November 2021)

The witness statements served by the second defendant contained non-trivial breaches of PD32 and PD57AC, but the breaches did not justify striking out the statements. Instead, the court ordered redrafting of non-compliant sections with an unless order. The claimant's application for relief from sanctions to serve responsive witness statements was refused due to lack of good reason for delay and absence of injustice. The claimant was ordered to pay the reasonable costs of both defendants for the unsuccessful applications.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3095 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Blue Manchester Limited; First Defendant: Bug-Alu Technic GmbH; Second Defendant: SimpsonHaugh Architects Limited; Claimant in Associated Action HT 2019 MAN 000043: Deansgate Freehold Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Application in Technology and Construction Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Regarding Compliance of Trial Witness Statements With Practice Directions
Outcome
Application to strike out refused; unless order for redrafting non-compliant witness statement sections; application for relief from sanctions refused; costs awarded against claimant.
Legal Topics
Witness Statement Compliance, Practice Direction 32, Practice Direction 57 AC, Relief From Sanctions, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Construction Law Witness Statement Compliance Practice Direction 32 Practice Direction 57 AC Relief From Sanctions Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blue Manchester Limited

Claimant

Bug-Alu Technic GmbH

First Defendant

SimpsonHaugh Architects Limited

Second Defendant

Deansgate Freehold Limited

Claimant in Associated Action HT 2019 MAN 000043

Procedural Posture

Application in Technology and Construction Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Regarding Compliance of Trial Witness Statements With Practice Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant's trial witness statements comply with PD32 and PD57AC
  2. 2 Whether non-compliant paragraphs should be struck out or redrafted
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to relief from sanctions for late application to serve responsive witness statements

Ratio Decidendi

The witness statements served by the second defendant contained non-trivial breaches of PD32 and PD57AC, but the breaches did not justify striking out the statements. Instead, the court ordered redrafting of non-compliant sections with an unless order. The claimant's application for relief from sanctions to serve responsive witness statements was refused due to lack of good reason for delay and absence of injustice. The claimant was ordered to pay the reasonable costs of both defendants for the unsuccessful applications.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused; unless order for redrafting non-compliant witness statement sections; application for relief from sanctions refused; costs awarded against claimant.

Orders

  • Second defendant to serve compliant witness statements by 5pm on 10 December 2021, with non-compliant sections struck out if not remedied.
  • Claimant refused permission to serve responsive witness statements out of time.