Amey LG Ltd v Amey Birmingham Highways Ltd [2019] EWHC 234 (TCC) (30 January 2019)

Amey LG Ltd v Amey Birmingham Highways Ltd [2019] EWHC 234 (TCC) (30 January 2019)

The existence of parallel proceedings on the same contract and the claimant's failure to notify or serve the defendant constituted procedural abuse, but striking out the claim would be disproportionate. The appropriate remedy is to impose a non-consensual stay on the Part 20 proceedings to avoid multiplicity and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 234 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Amey LG Limited; Defendant: Amey Birmingham Highways Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology & Construction Court) / Application to Strike Out Proceedings as Abuse of Process
Outcome
Part 8 proceedings not struck out; non-consensual stay imposed on Part 20 proceedings until further order of the court.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Adjudication Enforcement, Multiplicity of Proceedings, Case Management, Stay of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Construction Law Contract Law Abuse of Process Adjudication Enforcement Multiplicity of Proceedings Case Management Stay of Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amey LG Limited

Claimant

Amey Birmingham Highways Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology & Construction Court) / Application to Strike Out Proceedings as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 8 proceedings should be struck out as an abuse of process due to multiplicity of proceedings and conduct of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's approach to listing and service constituted an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether striking out is a proportionate response or if a stay is more appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of parallel proceedings on the same contract and the claimant's failure to notify or serve the defendant constituted procedural abuse, but striking out the claim would be disproportionate. The appropriate remedy is to impose a non-consensual stay on the Part 20 proceedings to avoid multiplicity and allow the Part 8 claim to proceed, with costs to reflect the court's disapproval of the claimant's conduct.

Court Disposition

Part 8 proceedings not struck out; non-consensual stay imposed on Part 20 proceedings until further order of the court.

Orders

  • Non-consensual stay on Part 20 proceedings in HT-2018-219 until further order of the court.
  • Part 8 proceedings in HT-2018-337 allowed to proceed.