Pantelli Associates Ltd v Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd

Pantelli Associates Ltd v Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd

The Defendant's proposed amendments failed to provide proper particulars of the allegations of professional negligence and causation, did not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) or the unless order, and were unsupported by expert evidence. Therefore, the allegations of professional negligence and the counterclaim for £300,000 were struck out.

Parties
Claimant: Pantelli Associates Limited; Defendant: Corporate City Developments Number Two Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence, Contract) / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence and Counterclaim; Application to Strike Out
Outcome
Allegations of professional negligence and counterclaim struck out; case proceeds on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Unless Orders, Expert Evidence in Professional Negligence, Striking Out Pleadings
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Pleading Requirements Unless Orders Expert Evidence in Professional Negligence Striking Out Pleadings

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 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

Civil (professional Negligence, Contract) / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence and Counterclaim; Application to Strike Out

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 of 6 October 2010
  2. 2 Whether allegations of professional negligence require expert input before being pleaded
  3. 3 Whether the counterclaim for £300,000 should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's proposed amendments failed to provide proper particulars of the allegations of professional negligence and causation, did not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) or the unless order, and were unsupported by expert evidence. Therefore, the allegations of professional negligence and the counterclaim for £300,000 were struck out.

Court Disposition

Allegations of professional negligence and counterclaim struck out; case proceeds on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 16 and 36 of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim struck out in accordance with the unless order of 6 October 2010.
  • Counterclaim for £300,000 struck out.