Higginson Securities (Developments) Ltd & Anor v Hodson

Higginson Securities (Developments) Ltd & Anor v Hodson

A stay of proceedings is not warranted where the parties have not acted unreasonably in failing to hold a without prejudice meeting, especially when the claimants made repeated pragmatic offers to meet and the defendant's approach was disproportionate and confrontational. The Protocol does not make such meetings absolutely mandatory, and the overriding objective requires a pragmatic, cost-effective approach.

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
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pre Action Protocol, Costs, Case Management, Overriding Objective, Stay of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Construction Law Professional Negligence Pre Action Protocol Costs Case Management Overriding Objective Stay of Proceedings

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

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted to enable compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes
  2. 2 Whether a without prejudice meeting is mandatory under the Protocol
  3. 3 Whether the parties acted reasonably and pragmatically in the conduct of pre-action steps

Ratio Decidendi

A stay of proceedings is not warranted where the parties have not acted unreasonably in failing to hold a without prejudice meeting, especially when the claimants made repeated pragmatic offers to meet and the defendant's approach was disproportionate and confrontational. The Protocol does not make such meetings absolutely mandatory, and the overriding objective requires a pragmatic, cost-effective approach.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

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