Naylor & Ors v Roamquest Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2353 (TCC) (27 July 2021)

Naylor & Ors v Roamquest Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2353 (TCC) (27 July 2021)

The court held that limited intrusive inspections are justified only in respect of twelve aluminium panels in locations selected by the claimants, as this is a proportionate response to their concerns about workmanship in the replacement cladding. There is no sufficient evidence to justify wider intrusive investigations into retained elements, and the claimants have had ample opportunity to inspect during remedial works. The inspections must be carried out by Galliard, with a risk assessment and method statement provided by the claimants, and costs to be paid on account by the claimants.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2353 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Elaine Naylor & 10 Ors; Defendant: Roamquest Limited; Defendant: Galliard Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Technology & Construction Court / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Conduct Intrusive Inspections
Outcome
Application granted in part; limited intrusive inspections permitted; remainder refused.
Legal Topics
Building Defects, Intrusive Inspections, Interim Remedies, Costs, Case Management
Construction Law Civil Procedure Building Defects Intrusive Inspections Interim Remedies Costs 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elaine Naylor & 10 Ors

Claimant

Roamquest Limited

Defendant

Galliard Homes Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Technology & Construction Court / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Conduct Intrusive Inspections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants should be permitted to conduct intrusive inspections of building facades
  2. 2 Whether further inspections are necessary to plead the defects claim
  3. 3 Appropriateness and scope of intrusive investigations during ongoing proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that limited intrusive inspections are justified only in respect of twelve aluminium panels in locations selected by the claimants, as this is a proportionate response to their concerns about workmanship in the replacement cladding. There is no sufficient evidence to justify wider intrusive investigations into retained elements, and the claimants have had ample opportunity to inspect during remedial works. The inspections must be carried out by Galliard, with a risk assessment and method statement provided by the claimants, and costs to be paid on account by the claimants.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; limited intrusive inspections permitted; remainder refused.

Orders

  • Defendants to permit intrusive inspection of twelve aluminium panels at locations selected by claimants, subject to risk assessment and method statement.
  • Inspections to be carried out by Galliard.