CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd & Ors

CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd & Ors

The court has unfettered discretion to order costs budgets in cases above the monetary threshold, and it is inappropriate to order a pre-disclosure ADR window opposed by a significant party; separate costs budgets for overlapping claims are not required in multi-party litigation.

Parties
Claimant: CIP Properties (AIPT) Limited; Defendant: Galliford Try Infrastructure Limited; Third Party: EIC Limited; Fourth Party: Kone PLC; Fifth Party: DLG Architects LLP; Sixth Party: Damond Lock Grabowski & Partners (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Case Management Conference (cmc) Ruling
Outcome
Points of principle decided against the claimants; court has discretion to order costs budgets; ADR window not ordered.
Legal Topics
ADR (alternative Dispute Resolution), Case Management, Costs Budgets, Multi Party Litigation
Civil Procedure Construction Law ADR (alternative Dispute Resolution) Case Management Costs Budgets Multi Party Litigation

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CIP Properties (AIPT) Limited

Claimant

Galliford Try Infrastructure Limited

Defendant

EIC Limited

Third Party

Kone PLC

Fourth Party

DLG Architects LLP

Fifth Party

Damond Lock Grabowski & Partners (a firm)

Sixth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Case Management Conference (cmc) Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the court order a 'window' or stay for ADR in the case management timetable?
  2. 2 Does the court have discretion to order costs budgets in cases exceeding the monetary threshold under CPR 3.12?
  3. 3 Is the court's discretion to order costs budgets fettered by the monetary threshold?

Ratio Decidendi

The court has unfettered discretion to order costs budgets in cases above the monetary threshold, and it is inappropriate to order a pre-disclosure ADR window opposed by a significant party; separate costs budgets for overlapping claims are not required in multi-party litigation.

Court Disposition

Points of principle decided against the claimants; court has discretion to order costs budgets; ADR window not ordered.

Orders

  • No ADR window of four months prior to disclosure is ordered.
  • If claimants continue to oppose costs budgets, CMC to be re-fixed for detailed argument.