Monty & Payter LLP v MWA Projects Limited

Monty & Payter LLP v MWA Projects Limited

There is no serious issue to be tried as the contract does not entitle the Contract Administrator to unrestricted access; the defendant has complied with contractual obligations. Damages would be an adequate remedy for any loss, and the balance of convenience favours the defendant due to health and safety obligations and the lack of urgency or necessity. The application is neither urgent nor desirable in the interests of justice. Indemnity costs are appropriate due to the unmeritorious and unreasonable pursuit of the application.

Parties
Claimant: Monty & Payter LLP; Defendant: MWA Projects Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunction and Costs
Outcome
Application for interim injunction dismissed; indemnity costs awarded to defendant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Site Access, Health and Safety, Building Contracts, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Construction Law Contract Law Interim Injunctions Site Access Health and Safety Building Contracts Costs Orders

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 / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunction and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a mandatory interim injunction for unrestricted site access
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached the building contract by restricting access
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

There is no serious issue to be tried as the contract does not entitle the Contract Administrator to unrestricted access; the defendant has complied with contractual obligations. Damages would be an adequate remedy for any loss, and the balance of convenience favours the defendant due to health and safety obligations and the lack of urgency or necessity. The application is neither urgent nor desirable in the interests of justice. Indemnity costs are appropriate due to the unmeritorious and unreasonable pursuit of the application.

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 in the sum of £57,518 within fourteen days