CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 3546 (TCC) (29 October 2014)

CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 3546 (TCC) (29 October 2014)

The court has an unfettered discretion to order the filing and exchange of costs budgets in claims exceeding the CPR monetary threshold, and should not order a fixed ADR window or stay opposed by a significant party; costs budgeting should be practical and not require artificial separation of common costs in multi-party litigation.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3546 (TCC)
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
Technology and Construction Court Multi Party Construction Dispute / Case Management Conference (cmc) – Interlocutory Judgment on ADR Window and Costs Budgets
Outcome
Points of principle decided against the claimants; no ADR window ordered; court has discretion to order costs budgets; no order for separate budgets at this stage.
Legal Topics
Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr), Case Management, Costs Budgets, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr), Multi Party Litigation
Civil Procedure Construction Law Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr) Case Management Costs Budgets Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) 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 3 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

Technology and Construction Court Multi Party Construction Dispute / Case Management Conference (cmc) – Interlocutory Judgment on ADR Window and Costs Budgets

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order a 'window' or stay for ADR prior to disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the court has discretion to order costs budgets in claims exceeding the CPR threshold
  3. 3 Whether the court's discretion to order costs budgets is fettered by the monetary threshold

Ratio Decidendi

The court has an unfettered discretion to order the filing and exchange of costs budgets in claims exceeding the CPR monetary threshold, and should not order a fixed ADR window or stay opposed by a significant party; costs budgeting should be practical and not require artificial separation of common costs in multi-party litigation.

Court Disposition

Points of principle decided against the claimants; no ADR window ordered; court has discretion to order costs budgets; no order for separate budgets at this stage.

Orders

  • Application for a four-month ADR window prior to disclosure refused.
  • Court holds it has discretion to order costs budgets in this case.