Stonewater Ltd v BAM Construction Ltd

Stonewater Ltd v BAM Construction Ltd

The application to try the two claims together was refused due to the lateness of the application, the advanced stage of the BAM proceedings, lack of satisfactory explanation for delay, and prejudice to BAM. The application for a preliminary issue was refused as it would not dispose of the claim or a significant...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Stonewater Limited; Defendant: BAM Construction Limited; Defendant: RPS Design Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Interlocutory Applications (case Management and Preliminary Issue)
Outcome
Both applications refused.
Legal Topics
Case Management, Joinder of Actions, Preliminary Issues, Warranties, Limitation of Actions, Defective Premises Act
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Case Management Joinder of Actions Preliminary Issues Warranties Limitation of Actions +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stonewater Limited

Claimant

BAM Construction Limited

Defendant

RPS Design Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Interlocutory Applications (case Management and Preliminary Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two related construction claims should be tried together
  2. 2 Whether a preliminary issue on the construction of a warranty should be determined in advance

Ratio Decidendi

The application to try the two claims together was refused due to the lateness of the application, the advanced stage of the BAM proceedings, lack of satisfactory explanation for delay, and prejudice to BAM. The application for a preliminary issue was refused as it would not dispose of the claim or a significant aspect, nor would it save costs or time.

Court Disposition

Both applications refused.

Orders

  • Application by Stonewater for joint trial refused.
  • Application by RPS for preliminary issue refused.