Carillion JM Ltd v PHI Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 496 (TCC) (10 March 2010)

Carillion JM Ltd v PHI Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 496 (TCC) (10 March 2010)

PHI's delay in applying to join Robert West as a Part 20 defendant was unjustified and inadequately explained. The risk of injustice to Carillion from further adjournment outweighed any injustice to PHI. The Part 20 claim should be heard separately, with procedural safeguards to minimize risk of inconsistent findings. Amendments to the Defence were allowed except for paragraph 61A, which was insufficiently particularized.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 496 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Carillion JM Limited; Defendant: PHI Group Limited; Proposed Part 20 Defendant: Robert West Consulting
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Interlocutory Application (permission to Amend Defence, Join Third Party, and Directions)
Outcome
PHI's application to join Robert West as Part 20 defendant allowed; application for joint hearing refused; amendments to Defence allowed except for paragraph 61A; costs awarded against PHI.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Case Management, Contributory Negligence, Indemnity and Contribution
Civil Procedure Construction Law Amendment of Pleadings Joinder of Parties Case Management Contributory Negligence Indemnity and Contribution

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carillion JM Limited

Claimant

PHI Group Limited

Defendant

Robert West Consulting

Proposed Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Interlocutory Application (permission to Amend Defence, Join Third Party, and Directions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PHI should be permitted to amend its Defence to make admissions and allege contributory negligence
  2. 2 Whether PHI should be permitted to join Robert West Consulting as a Part 20 defendant for contribution/indemnity
  3. 3 Whether the Part 20 claim should be heard together with or separately from the principal claim

Ratio Decidendi

PHI's delay in applying to join Robert West as a Part 20 defendant was unjustified and inadequately explained. The risk of injustice to Carillion from further adjournment outweighed any injustice to PHI. The Part 20 claim should be heard separately, with procedural safeguards to minimize risk of inconsistent findings. Amendments to the Defence were allowed except for paragraph 61A, which was insufficiently particularized.

Court Disposition

PHI's application to join Robert West as Part 20 defendant allowed; application for joint hearing refused; amendments to Defence allowed except for paragraph 61A; costs awarded against PHI.

Orders

  • PHI joined Robert West as Part 20 defendant, but Part 20 claim to be heard separately from principal claim.
  • PHI's amendments to Defence allowed except for paragraph 61A.