Pantelli Associates Ltd v Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd [2010] EWHC 3189 (TCC) (02 December 2010)

Pantelli Associates Ltd v Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd [2010] EWHC 3189 (TCC) (02 December 2010)

The Defendant's proposed amendments failed to provide proper particulars of professional negligence and causation as required by CPR 16.4(1)(a) and the unless order. The allegations were generic, unparticularised, and unsupported by expert evidence. In the absence of compliance or application for relief, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3189 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Pantelli Associates Limited; Defendant: Corporate City Developments Number Two Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial/construction Dispute / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence and Counterclaim; Ruling on Unless Order Compliance
Outcome
Allegations of professional negligence and the £300,000 counterclaim struck out; only the fees claim and its quantum remain in issue.
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Unless Orders, Professional Negligence Claims, Expert Evidence, Striking Out Pleadings
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Pleading Requirements Unless Orders Professional Negligence Claims Expert Evidence Striking Out Pleadings

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pantelli Associates Limited

Claimant

Corporate City Developments Number Two Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/construction Dispute / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence and Counterclaim; Ruling on Unless Order Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's proposed amendments to plead professional negligence and counterclaim comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and the unless order
  2. 2 Whether allegations of professional negligence require expert input at the pleading stage

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's proposed amendments failed to provide proper particulars of professional negligence and causation as required by CPR 16.4(1)(a) and the unless order. The allegations were generic, unparticularised, and unsupported by expert evidence. In the absence of compliance or application for relief, the relevant parts of the Defence and Counterclaim must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Allegations of professional negligence and the £300,000 counterclaim struck out; only the fees claim and its quantum remain in issue.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 16 and 36 of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim struck out in accordance with the unless order.
  • CCD not permitted to raise unpleaded criticisms of Pantelli's performance to reduce the fees claim.