TJ Brent Ltd & Anor v Black & Veatch Consulting Ltd [2008] EWHC 1497 (TCC) (13 June 2008)

TJ Brent Ltd & Anor v Black & Veatch Consulting Ltd [2008] EWHC 1497 (TCC) (13 June 2008)

The claimants complied in substance with the Pre-action Protocol by providing sufficient information about the claim, the basis for liability, and repeatedly inviting the defendant to meetings. Any technical non-compliance was immaterial and did not prejudice the defendant, who was fully aware of the claim and able to respond. The defendant failed to show that compliance would have led to settlement or that it suffered any real prejudice. Therefore, no costs order is justified.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1497 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: TJ Brent Ltd; Claimant: A J Loveland Thames Ltd; Defendant: Black & Veatch Consulting Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Order (interlocutory) / Post Pleadings, Pre Trial, Application for Costs Due to Alleged Pre Action Protocol Non Compliance
Outcome
Defendant's application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pre Action Protocol Compliance, Costs Sanctions, Contribution Claims, Limitation, Alternative Dispute Resolution
Civil Procedure Construction Law Pre Action Protocol Compliance Costs Sanctions Contribution Claims Limitation Alternative Dispute Resolution

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TJ Brent Ltd

Claimant

A J Loveland Thames Ltd

Claimant

Black & Veatch Consulting Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs Order (interlocutory) / Post Pleadings, Pre Trial, Application for Costs Due to Alleged Pre Action Protocol Non Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants complied with the Pre-action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes
  2. 2 Whether any non-compliance justifies a costs order against the claimants
  3. 3 Whether the defendant suffered prejudice from alleged non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants complied in substance with the Pre-action Protocol by providing sufficient information about the claim, the basis for liability, and repeatedly inviting the defendant to meetings. Any technical non-compliance was immaterial and did not prejudice the defendant, who was fully aware of the claim and able to respond. The defendant failed to show that compliance would have led to settlement or that it suffered any real prejudice. Therefore, no costs order is justified.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs in favour of the defendant for alleged pre-action protocol non-compliance