Monty & Payter LLP v MWA Projects Ltd [2023] EWHC 1682 (TCC) (09 June 2023)

Monty & Payter LLP v MWA Projects Ltd [2023] EWHC 1682 (TCC) (09 June 2023)

There is no serious issue to be tried as the contract does not entitle the claimant to unrestricted access; the defendant has complied with its contractual and statutory obligations. Damages would be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favours the defendant due to health and safety considerations and lack of urgency. The application is neither urgent nor desirable in the interests of justice.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1682 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Monty & Payter LLP; Defendant: MWA Projects Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Commencement of Proceedings; Costs Determination
Outcome
Application for interim injunction dismissed; indemnity costs awarded to defendant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Building Contracts, Site Access, Health and Safety, Costs (indemnity)
Construction Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Building Contracts Site Access Health and Safety Costs (indemnity)

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monty & Payter LLP

Claimant

MWA Projects Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Commencement of Proceedings; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a mandatory interim injunction requiring the defendant to maintain site access arrangements as of 1 May 2023 and to provide notice and reasons for any changes affecting the claimant's access or design team.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's restriction of site access constitutes a breach of contract.
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no serious issue to be tried as the contract does not entitle the claimant to unrestricted access; the defendant has complied with its contractual and statutory obligations. Damages would be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favours the defendant due to health and safety considerations and lack of urgency. The application is neither urgent nor desirable in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction dismissed; indemnity costs awarded to defendant.

Orders

  • Application for injunction dismissed.
  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs on an indemnity basis, summarily assessed at £57,518, payable within fourteen days.