BALFOUR BEATTY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (FORMERLY MANSELL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LIMITED) v BROADWAY MALYAN LIMITED

BALFOUR BEATTY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (FORMERLY MANSELL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LIMITED) v BROADWAY MALYAN LIMITED

The application for early specific disclosure was refused because the claimant's difficulties in particularising its claim without disclosure were not unusual, both parties faced similar document access issues, and the application was premature given the absence of identified issues for disclosure and the requirements of Practice Direction 51U. The circumstances did not justify departing from the usual process, and there was no good reason to order early specific disclosure at this stage.

Parties
Claimant: Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Limited (formerly Mansell Construction Services Limited); Defendant: Broadway Malyan Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Early Specific Disclosure in Construction Dispute / Interlocutory Application Prior to Service of Claim and Pre Action Protocol Compliance
Outcome
Application for early specific disclosure refused
Legal Topics
Early Specific Disclosure, Contractual Entitlement to Documents, Pre Action Protocol Compliance, Case Management Powers, Disclosure Under Practice Direction 51 U
Civil Procedure Construction Law Professional Negligence Early Specific Disclosure Contractual Entitlement to Documents Pre Action Protocol Compliance Case Management Powers Disclosure Under Practice Direction 51 U

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Limited (formerly Mansell Construction Services Limited)

Claimant

Broadway Malyan Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Early Specific Disclosure in Construction Dispute / Interlocutory Application Prior to Service of Claim and Pre Action Protocol Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to early specific disclosure of documents from the defendant under contractual or proprietary rights or under the court's case management powers
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order early specific disclosure before the pre-action protocol process and identification of issues for disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The application for early specific disclosure was refused because the claimant's difficulties in particularising its claim without disclosure were not unusual, both parties faced similar document access issues, and the application was premature given the absence of identified issues for disclosure and the requirements of Practice Direction 51U. The circumstances did not justify departing from the usual process, and there was no good reason to order early specific disclosure at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application for early specific disclosure refused