Anglo Swiss Holdings Ltd & Ors v Packman Lucas Ltd

Anglo Swiss Holdings Ltd & Ors v Packman Lucas Ltd

The Claimants acted unreasonably and oppressively by refusing to honour adjudication decisions and court judgments while pursuing claims based on assertions contradicted by unchallenged evidence. The court exercised its discretion to stay the proceedings until the Claimants complied with their contractual and statutory obligations and provided security for costs, as justice and the policy of the HGCRA required.

Parties
Claimant: Anglo Swiss Holdings Limited; Claimant: Good Start Limited; Claimant: Mentmore Towers Limited; Defendant: Packman Lucas Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction/commercial) / Interlocutory Applications (stay of Proceedings, Security for Costs, Consolidation)
Outcome
Stay of proceedings granted until Claimants pay adjudicated sums and provide security for costs; no stay for Pre-Action Protocol compliance.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Security for Costs, Enforcement of Adjudication Decisions, Pre Action Protocol Compliance, Case Management
Civil Procedure Construction Law Contract Law Stay of Proceedings Security for Costs Enforcement of Adjudication Decisions Pre Action Protocol Compliance Case Management

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anglo Swiss Holdings Limited

Claimant

Good Start Limited

Claimant

Mentmore Towers Limited

Claimant

Packman Lucas Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction/commercial) / Interlocutory Applications (stay of Proceedings, Security for Costs, Consolidation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be stayed pending compliance with TCC Pre-Action Protocol
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed pending satisfaction of adjudication decisions and court judgments
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the Claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants acted unreasonably and oppressively by refusing to honour adjudication decisions and court judgments while pursuing claims based on assertions contradicted by unchallenged evidence. The court exercised its discretion to stay the proceedings until the Claimants complied with their contractual and statutory obligations and provided security for costs, as justice and the policy of the HGCRA required.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings granted until Claimants pay adjudicated sums and provide security for costs; no stay for Pre-Action Protocol compliance.

Orders

  • Stay of consolidated proceedings (HT-09-410 to 412) until Claimants pay all sums ordered by the adjudicator.
  • Further stay until Claimants provide security for costs in the sum of £50,000 (with a further £90,000 after exchange of witness statements).