Higginson Securities (Developments) Ltd & Anor v Hodson [2012] EWHC 1052 (TCC) (26 April 2012)

Higginson Securities (Developments) Ltd & Anor v Hodson [2012] EWHC 1052 (TCC) (26 April 2012)

A stay of proceedings was not justified as both parties are responsible for arranging a Protocol meeting, the Claimants made reasonable offers for such a meeting, and the Defendant's approach was disproportionate and not pragmatic. The overriding objective requires a sensible, cost-effective approach, especially in low value claims.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1052 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Higginson Securities (Developments) Limited; Claimant: Spiritualist National Union Trust; Defendant: Kenneth Hodson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Prior to Defence
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Pre Action Protocol, Stay of Proceedings, Overriding Objective, Case Management, Professional Negligence, Overcharging
Civil Procedure Construction Law Professional Negligence Pre Action Protocol Stay of Proceedings Overriding Objective Case Management Overcharging

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Higginson Securities (Developments) Limited

Claimant

Spiritualist National Union Trust

Claimant

Kenneth Hodson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Prior to Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted to enable a without prejudice meeting under the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes
  2. 2 Whether compliance with the Protocol is mandatory in every case
  3. 3 Whether the parties acted in accordance with the overriding objective

Ratio Decidendi

A stay of proceedings was not justified as both parties are responsible for arranging a Protocol meeting, the Claimants made reasonable offers for such a meeting, and the Defendant's approach was disproportionate and not pragmatic. The overriding objective requires a sensible, cost-effective approach, especially in low value claims.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant to serve Defence within 14 days
  • Proceedings stayed for 4 weeks after Defence to enable a without prejudice meeting or mediation