Cockell (t/a Cockell Building Services) v Holton (No 2) [2015] EWHC 1117 (TCC) (22 April 2015)

Cockell (t/a Cockell Building Services) v Holton (No 2) [2015] EWHC 1117 (TCC) (22 April 2015)

Relief from sanctions was refused because the Defendant's breach was serious and significant, consisting of persistent failure to comply with court orders and inadequate particularisation of the Counterclaim. No good reason was provided for the default, and granting relief would prejudice the Claimant and disrupt...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1117 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Simon Cockell (t/a Cockell Building Services); Defendant: Martin Holton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief From Sanctions in Civil Proceedings (technology and Construction Court) / Post Case Management, Pre Trial, Application for Relief From Sanctions Following Breach of Unless Order
Outcome
Application for relief from sanctions refused in respect of the Counterclaim; permission granted to amend Defence to plead abatement as a defence.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Unless Orders, Pleading Requirements, Counterclaims, Particularisation of Claims, Amendment of Pleadings, Abatement as Defence, Compliance With Court Orders
Civil Procedure Construction Law Relief From Sanctions Unless Orders Pleading Requirements Counterclaims Particularisation of Claims Amendment of Pleadings +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Cockell (t/a Cockell Building Services)

Claimant

Martin Holton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Relief From Sanctions in Civil Proceedings (technology and Construction Court) / Post Case Management, Pre Trial, Application for Relief From Sanctions Following Breach of Unless Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant should be granted relief from sanctions for failure to comply with an unless order to serve and file a re-pleaded Counterclaim with sufficient particularity by the court-ordered deadline
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant should be permitted to amend his Defence to deploy allegations of defective work as a defence (abatement) to the Claimant's claim for underpayment

Ratio Decidendi

Relief from sanctions was refused because the Defendant's breach was serious and significant, consisting of persistent failure to comply with court orders and inadequate particularisation of the Counterclaim. No good reason was provided for the default, and granting relief would prejudice the Claimant and disrupt the efficient conduct of litigation. However, the Defendant was permitted to amend his Defence to plead abatement (defective work) as a defence to the Claimant's claim for underpayment, but not to pursue a counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Application for relief from sanctions refused in respect of the Counterclaim; permission granted to amend Defence to plead abatement as a defence.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 93 and 94 of the re-pleaded Counterclaim as served on 20 March 2015 are struck out.
  • The first 10 words of paragraph 95 are struck out.