Kevin Demirci Properties Limited v Huw Griffiths Architects Limited

Kevin Demirci Properties Limited v Huw Griffiths Architects Limited

Strike out was refused because the inclusion of the false fact in the PoC was due to confusion and incompetence, not dishonesty or recklessness, and could be remedied by amendment without undermining the fairness of proceedings. Permission for contempt proceedings was refused as there was no strong prima facie case and the public interest did not require it. The claim was not struck out for lack of privity as the PoC pleaded a valid cause of action and the issue required factual determination at trial. Permission to amend the PoC was granted as the amendments did not introduce new causes of action outside the existing facts and were necessary for proper particularisation. The Claimant was...

Parties
Claimant: Kevin Demirci Properties Limited; Defendant: Huw Griffiths Architects Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Interlocutory Judgment on Strike Out, Contempt, Amendment, and Expert Evidence Applications
Outcome
Defendant's applications dismissed; Claimant's applications granted
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Contempt of Court, Amendment of Pleadings, Expert Evidence, Privity of Contract
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Strike Out Applications Contempt of Court Amendment of Pleadings Expert Evidence Privity of Contract

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Demirci Properties Limited

Claimant

Huw Griffiths Architects Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Interlocutory Judgment on Strike Out, Contempt, Amendment, and Expert Evidence Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out for inclusion of a false allegation in the Particulars of Claim
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted to bring contempt proceedings against the Claimant's director
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out for lack of privity of contract

Ratio Decidendi

Strike out was refused because the inclusion of the false fact in the PoC was due to confusion and incompetence, not dishonesty or recklessness, and could be remedied by amendment without undermining the fairness of proceedings. Permission for contempt proceedings was refused as there was no strong prima facie case and the public interest did not require it. The claim was not struck out for lack of privity as the PoC pleaded a valid cause of action and the issue required factual determination at trial. Permission to amend the PoC was granted as the amendments did not introduce new causes of action outside the existing facts and were necessary for proper particularisation. The Claimant was...

Court Disposition

Defendant's applications dismissed; Claimant's applications granted

Orders

  • Defendant's application to strike out the claim is dismissed
  • Defendant's application for permission to bring contempt proceedings against Mr Demirci is dismissed